Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes

Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes Felician C Meza, Frank C Tenywa, Simon Ashall, Fredros O Okumu, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4450332/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) are one of the new promising interventions that can complement existing vector control tools. However, there is need to provide reproducible and quantitative information on the level of attractiveness of ATSBs under field conditions. To do so, we customized camera traps for close-up imaging and integrated them into a rugged ATSB monitoring station for day and night-time recording of mosquitoes landing on the baits. Methods The camera traps were evaluated, in a semi-field system and then in the field in rural Tanzania. In semi-field 2m x 5m x 2m net chambers, the camera trap was set up to record mosquitoes landing on either an attractive sugar bait (ASB), a blank ASB or 20% sucrose (w/v). Next, 198 mosquitoes (33 males and 33 females of Anopheles arabiensis , Anopheles funestus and Aedes aegypti ) were released into each chamber and allowed to seek a sugar-meal for 72h, with the camera recording images of mosquitoes present on the ASB at 1min intervals. In the field 16 camera traps were set in 16 households, 7 with ASB attractant, 7 with ASB blank and 2 with 20% sucrose (w/v). Human landing catch (HLC) was performed on the same nights as the camera trap recordings. Results Under the semi-field conditions, there were significantly more mosquitoes that visited the ASBs than the blank baits, with An. funestus visiting more frequently than An. arabiensis . There were no significant differences between females and male An. arabiensis visits, but female An. funestus visited more than their conspecific males. The duration of visits did not vary between the ASB and the blanks, nor between the mosquito species. Moreover, mosquitoes visited the ASB or sucrose equally, with An. arabiensis visiting the baits more than An. funestus. Female mosquitoes visited the baits more than the males . There was no significant difference in visit duration between all species. In the field study, a mean of 70 An. arabiensis were caught per person per night by HLC compared to 1 individual recorded per night on ASBs. There were significantly more visits by mosquitoes to the ASB than the ASB blanksand sucrose solution, with more An. arabiensis visiting the baits than An. funestus or C. quinquefasciatus. Females of all species visited baits significantly more than males. Again, the duration of visits was similar between An. arabiensis , An. funestus and C. quinquefasciatus . Ae. aegypti very rarely visited ASBs in the semi-field experiments and none were observed on baits in the field. Conclusions The use of camera traps to record still images of mosquitoes present on ASBs provides robust, reproducible and quantitative information on their attractiveness under different environmental conditions. Therefore, camera traps are powerful tools for evaluating and improving the ATSB technology. ATSB ASB Camera trap Malaria Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Background Mosquitoes are responsible for putting nearly half of the world's population at risk of malaria and dengue. In 2021, there were an estimated 619 000 death and 247 million cases of malaria worldwide, with an estimated 100–400 million dengue infections occurring each year [ 1 , 2 ]. Improved control of malaria and dengue vectors requires new interventions that can work synergistically with existing interventions such as Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) and Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS)(Torto, 2019). Attractive Targeted Sugar Bait (ATSB) is one example of such complementary tools and is widely expected to enter widespread use in the near future. ATSBs exploit the mosquito sugar feeding behaviours, by luring individuals onto a sugar-laden target that is also treated with a killing agent, such as insecticide [ 4 ]. Both male and female mosquitoes depend on plant sugars such as nectar from flowers and sap from leaves and plant stems, to obtain energy [ 5 , 6 ]. A growing body of evidence has shown that Afrotropical malaria and dengue mosquitoes regularly feed on plant sugars in their natural environment [ 7 ]. It is thus plausible that female mosquitoes make use of plant odours to associate with host plants; and it has recently shown that An. gambiae females can detect plant derived sesquiterpenes and alkenes [ 8 ]. A number of ATSBs with different attractants have been developed, and tested either in the laboratory, semi-field cages, experimental huts or field trials [ 9 – 11 ]. These tests have proved that ATSBs are a promising intervention that can complement existing vector control tools, in tackling even insecticide resistant, and outdoor or day-time biting mosquitoes in arid and semi-arid areas [ 12 – 16 ]. In the tropics, where there is dense vegetation rich in sugar sources, ATSBs may be located near mosquito breeding habitats, outdoors and even indoors [ 9 , 10 , 17 ]. In this context, it is particularly critical to select effective attractants for the ATSBs. The current Sarabi ATSB stations developed by Westham Co. have a permeable membrane that encloses the bait mixture (attractant, sugar, with or without active ingredient). The permeable membrane allows mosquitoes to feed through it and attractants to pass through it but is strong enough to protect the bait mixture from excessive leaking as well as environmental hazards such as rain, dehydration, ultra-violet light and others. These baits are thought to be unattractive and/or inaccessible to non-targets organisms (NTOs), such as bees, butterflies, etc. Previous versions of these ATSBs were very effective in targeting malaria vectors in a field trial in Mali [ 11 ]. Since then, a new ATSB design (version 1.2.1) is under evaluation in Mali, Kenya, and Zambia in partnership with the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) and was included in this study albeit without its toxic agent. Laboratory, semi-field and field trial systems are needed to evaluate the attractiveness of mosquitoes to ATSBs. Most studies on assessing the attractiveness of ATSB rely on using a version of the bait without insecticide (referred to as Attractive Sugar Bait, ASB) and coloring it with food dye or including the dye in ASB sprayed on vegetation to measure the proportion of captured mosquitoes which have fed on the bait [ 9 , 18 – 21 ]. Mosquitoes that have fed on the ASB attractant mixed with food dyes are identified by looking for the food dye in their abdomens and are scored as fed if the dye is detected. These methods require experienced personnel who may be able to detect the dye and observe engorged abdomens of mosquitoes even when the mosquitoes have consumed small meals [ 22 ]. Some studies use a fluorescent dye rather than a food dye to identify which mosquitoes have fed [ 23 ] or trypan blue dye as a visual marker which is readily detected within the mosquito abdomens and the blue faecal spots provide more evidence of sugar feeding [ 24 ]. Besides requiring a fluorescent microscope and trained personnel, the dyes could potentially affect the attractiveness or palatability of the bait and therefore alter the feeding rate [ 23 ], thus leading to low feeding rates and undermining the efficacy of the attractant. Over the last decade, driven by a strong demand by hobbyists (hunters, photographers, garden owners) and professionals (nature conservationists, biologists, environmentalists, and others), trail camera traps have become smaller and gained capabilities of higher definition pictures, and HD videos. Importantly, prices have gone down and at less than $ 100 per camera, with their small size, waterproofing and low battery consumption, they have become an important tool for ecologists [ 25 , 26 ]. To address the need for reproducible and quantitative information on mosquito responses to lethal sugar baits, this study investigated the use of scalable camera trap stations to evaluate the attractiveness of ASBs under both semi-field and field settings. The cameras were used to record the attractiveness as a key component of ASB efficacy, as well as differences in timing of visits to ASBs, duration between setting, species, mosquito gender and NTO behaviour around baits. Such studies provide crucial information ahead of the larger scale deployment of ATSB in various regions of Sub-Saharan Africa. Materials & Methods Camera trap customization Camera trap customization for close-up imaging The Bushnell dual-sensor 30 megapixels CoreDS camera (Bushnell, Cody Overland Park, U.S.A) was identified as one of the best choices for this project as this camera is equipped with seperate day and night image sensors for improved image quality under natural daylight and nocturnal illumination through LED infrared flash units. For this reason, this camera costs a bit more than average camera traps (~ 150–200 $ ). The camera was further customized to generate close-up day and night images of the ASBs. This was done in three steps: First, different combinations of close-up filters and focal distance between the camera and the ASB were compared to identify those with the least image distortion and best field of view. Second, the best combination was used to test different camera settings for daylight sensor and images. Finally, the best camera settings for the night sensor and images were identified and further customizations made to improve night image quality. The latter required dismantling the cameras to separate the built-in Infra-Red (IR) LED flashes from the electronic circuit board and rewiring the LED IR flashes with cables and connectors so that they could be repositioned on side brackets to illuminate the baits from the sides, thereby avoiding detrimental reflections and improving contrast. A prototype camera rig was developed and tested in a large cage in the insectaries of the Centre for Applied Entomology and Parasitology at Keele University (Fig. 1 ). This camera and close-up filter combination allowed for successful recording of time-lapse photography of ASB baits by day or night. Further optimizations were conducted to develop a sturdy plastic adapter to hold the close-up lens in position. This was done through carving a wax prototype which was used to generate a starting STL file. The design of the adapter was improved through several rounds of printing and improvements. The resulting adapter was printed in large number in black plastic resin. It holds the close-up lens tightly, incorporates waterproofing and dustproofing features and is kept in place via a plastic tie (Fig. 2 ). In addition, we developed simple guidelines for camera set-up and operations and drafted plans for the construction of animal and human proof lockable camera stations built using a folded aluminium plates design and wire mesh for deployment in the semi-field and field settings (S1, S2). Attractive sugar baits For the camera optimization performed in Keele, Sarabi ATSB stations without toxic active compounds (ASBs) Version 1.0 were of supplied by Westham Co. ASBs. They comprise of a two-dimensional (20 x 28cm) bait station with a permeable membrane on the front that encapsulates the bait mixture (attractant, sugar, with or without active ingredient) forming 16 bait pockets and sealed to a flat back layer. The permeable membrane has pores that allow mosquitoes to feed through it without puncturing it and provides protection to the bait mixture from leaking and reduces the impact of environmental hazards such as rain, dust, temperature, pressure, and others (Fig. 3 .). Semi-field experiments set-up Semi-field system Semi-field experimental tests were carried out, inside a large screened cage at the Ifakara Health Institute’s Mosquito City facility in Kining’ina village (8.10800 ° S, 36.66585 ° E) [ 27 – 29 ]. Adult mosquitoes 3–6 day old and sugar starved for 6 h were obtained from a common insectary maintained at 28 ± 2 0 C temperature and 75 ± 10% humidity, light regime of 12 light/12 h dark within the vector biology laboratory, the VectorSphere, at Ifakara Health Institute. Camera stations for recording mosquitoes and non-targeted insects landing on ATSBs The customized Bushnell CoreDS cameras were fitted in the 1.2 x 0.7 m x 0.52 m metal frame and positioned with their objective 90 cm high, exactly opposite the centre of an ASB station (Westham, Hod-Hasharon, Israel) positioned 55-60cm away. Cameras were used with the 3D-printed adapters and close-up filters. The ASBs were mounted sideways (landscape) so as to match the orientation of the camera's field of view and completely fill it (Fig. 4 , S 2 ). In addition to featuring a holding box to hold the camera in place at the correct distance, two metal brackets were welded on each side of the camera to hold the LED IR flash. The sides of the camera stations were enclosed by a metal wire frame and the stations were locked to safeguard the camera during field use. The cameras were set to take pictures with definition of 30M (30 megapixels) at 1 min intervals day and night and were fitted with changeable 32 Gigabyte memory cards (SanDisk, California, U.S.A). With such set-up the cameras were able to record images for 3 days without maintenance, battery, or memory card changes. Attractive Sugar Baits For semi-field studies, we used the Attractive Sugar Bait (ASB) version 1.2.1 which included the odour bait but not insecticide and the same bait stations without bait and insecticide, referred to as 'ASB blank' for attraction comparison. This version has a moulded plastic back layer with 16 wells containing bait and a flat membrane that covers the back layer and holds the bait in place. This membrane has pores which enable volatiles to escape and mosquitoes to feed on the bait. Semi-field experiments ASB versus ASB blank comparisons The semi-field experiments were done in two 2m x 5m x 2m large cages within a semi-field system (Fig. 4 ). Potted plants were added to create an environment suitable for mosquitoes (hiding places and humidity). In the 1st treatment group, a camera station was placed centrally in the cage with its camera placed so as to monitor an ASB. In the 2nd treatment group and large cage, it was placed so as to monitor an ASB blank (with no odour bait). At the start of the experiment, 198 mosquitoes sugar-starved for six hours (33 females and 33 males of A nopheles arabiensis, An. funestus and Aedes aegypti ) were released into each chamber and provided access to the test bait for 72 hrs (from 18:00 h on day 1 to 18:00 h on day 4). The camera was set to record images at 1-minute intervals to record mosquitoes having landed on the baits. At the end of the 72h experiment, the images stored on memory cards from camera traps were transferred onto a computer or hard drive for further analysis. Mosquitoes were aspirated using a Prokopack aspirator (John W. Hock Company, Gainesville, U.S.A). Three replicates of these experiment were conducted. ASB versus Sucrose comparisons Subsequently, ASB attractiveness was also compared to 20% sucrose baits (w/v) (Fig. 4 ). Sucrose baits were prepared by dissolving 20g of sucrose into 100ml of distilled water. Six petri dishes (Sigma Aldridge) of an approximately 11cm diameter and 90ml volume were prepared. A disc foam was prepared from locally bought cellulose dish washing sponge (O-Cel-O, Scotch Brite) and dipped into the prepared bait solution and thereafter pressed into each petri dish. The petri dishes were overlaid with one layer of cling film and the film was pierced (10 holes) with sterile 24 mm office pins to allow the bait solution to form small droplets at each piercing point without leaking on the surface of the cling film. Six petri dishes were overlaid with cling film and arrayed in each bait resulting in a bait (Fig. 4 , bottom left) of comparable surface area to that of the Westham ASBs. In the 1st treatment group, a camera station was placed centrally in the cage with its camera placed so as to monitor an ASB. In the 2nd treatment group and large cage, it was placed so as to monitor a sucrose bait. All other methods were similar to those used for the ASB vs ASB blank comparisons. Two replicates of the ASB vs sucrose comparison were conducted. Field experiments Study site The small field trial was conducted in Lupiro village (8 o 385 ’ S and 36 o 670 ’ E) in Ulanga District, south-eastern Tanzania. The village lies 270 m above sea level on the Kilombero river valley, and is 26 km south of Ifakara town, where Ifakara Health Institute (IHI) is located (Fig. 5 ). It borders many small contiguous and perennially swampy rice fields to the northern and eastern sides. The annual rainfall is 1200-1800mm, while temperatures range between 20 o C and 34 o C. Lupiro has year-round high densities of An. arabiensis constituting > 99.9% of the An. gambiae complex species [ 30 , 31 ]. An. arabiensis populations in that region are resistant to pyrethroid insecticides (mortality < 20%). This area is perennially meso-endemic with malaria and with high mosquito densities throughout the year, with a peak of mosquito density observed between January and May. Preliminary Human Landing Catch survey In Lupiro village, starting 5 days (from May 1 through May 5, 2022) before the beginning of the field ATSB experiment, a baseline survey focusing on 32 households was conducted to identify households with high mosquito densities, using Human Landing Catches (HLCs). HLCs were performed by male volunteers sitting on a chair outdoors, approximately 5 to 10 meters from households while exposing their shins and collecting mosquitoes that landed on their legs using a mouth aspirator [ 32 ]. The collection was done hourly for 11 hours from 19:00 to 06:00 in the morning with 15min breaks in each hour. The sixteen households with the highest mosquito densities (total number of mosquitoes collected per night > 20 in all cases) were included in the ATSB attractiveness experiment. All collected mosquitoes were morphologically identified to species level in the field with a dissection microscope using the Gillies and Coetzee identification key [ 33 , 34 ] ASB vs ASB blank vs sucrose attractiveness experiment The sixteen houses selected had an average household size of 2 to 5 individuals and housing structures of mud or brick walls with grass-thatched roof and were randomly allocated to 3 groups for the ASB attractiveness study as follows. Seven houses were assigned camera stations monitoring ASB with attractant, 7 houses received camera stations with ASB blanks, and 2 houses received camera stations with 20% sucrose baits. All camera types were tested over the same 22 consecutive days from May 6 through May 28, 2022. Camera stations were positioned parallel to houses and less than 1 meter away (Fig. 6 ). As in semi-field experiments, camera traps were set 60cm away from the baits mounted in landscape orientation ~ 90cm from the ground. Cameras were set-up to record day and night images in time-lapse mode at 1 min interval. Batteries and memory cards were changed every three days to ensure that images were collected for all 22 days of the experiment. The recorded images in the camera traps on an SD card, data was transferred onto the project’s computer and then stored in the hard drive. During the ASB experiment, HLCs were also performed daily to measure mosquito densities in the vicinity of the houses equipped with camera stations and ASBs but at least 10m away from the houses and camera stations. Collected mosquitoes were kept in paper cups labelled with the study ID, household ID, time and date of collection, replicate number and treatment name (ASB with or without attractant). In the morning, the collected mosquitoes from the HLCs were transferred to the field insectary, killed in a − 20°C freezer and sorted to species level. Analyses of time-lapse imaging from camera stations To simplify viewing and analysis of the time-lapse images, stacks of images equivalent to 24h (60 x 24 images) were converted to videos using the MacOS software iMovie. This allowed fast scrolling through the images for counting and recording of the landing and departure times of mosquitoes onto and from the bait stations. Time stamps on the images helped with organizing the stacks of images and recording precise landing and departure times. From this data, the duration of the bait station visit could also directly be inferred. Videos were scanned carefully and using the zoom functions to detect mosquitoes or non-target organisms on bait stations. Mosquitoes were further characterized to species level and sexed using morphological taxonomic characters such as the shape of antennae and maxillary palps, and the shape and colour of the mosquito body and wings. Non-target organisms were examined independently by two entomologists and, except for one instance, were consistently identified to the order and family levels. Statistical analysis Analysis was done using JMP® Pro 16.1.0 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA). Differences in the number of visits to baits in relation to bait station treatment, species, and mosquito sex were tested using Chi-square test of equal proportions. General linear models (negative binomial distribution) were also used to analyze the effect of bait station treatment, camera station (nested within treatment) and day, on mosquito visits per night per trap. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were then conducted using Likelihood-ratio tests. Replicate effects were included in models and reported only when significant. Continuous data such as mean number of mosquito visits per trap per day or mean duration of visits were checked for normality and homogeneity of variance and analyzed parametrically or non-parametrically accordingly. When conducting analyses focusing on the mean visit duration of mosquitoes on ASBs or sucrose it was observed that occasionally mosquitoes remained on sugar sources to rest long after feeding. To prevent those observations from biasing our statistical comparisons, we performed outlier analyses on the distribution of visit durations for the semi-field and field ASB versus ASB Blank experiments. Both analyses identified 12 min as the threshold duration beyond which mosquitoes were likely resting rather than sugar feeding (S 3). Thereafter longer visit durations were capped at 12 min for analyses. Ethics Approvals All experiments were conducted under ethical approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Ifakara Health Institute (IHI/IRB/AMM/ No: 24- 2021) and the Medical Research Coordination Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research in Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3777). Results Semi-field experiments ASB versus ASB blank Under semi-field conditions, mosquitoes exhibited a significant preference for ASBs over ASB blanks i.e. without attractant bait or insecticide (χ² = 24.06, P < 0.001) (Fig. 7 a, Table 1 ). The total visits was also higher for An. funestus on ASBs than for An. arabiensis , χ2 = 16.26, P < 0.001 (Fig. 7 a, Table 1 ). Female An. arabiensis and An. funestus frequented both bait types more than males, although it was statistically significant only for An. funestus (χ² = 34.18, P < 0.001). Comparisons of the mean number of visits per baits per night revealed no significant differences between ASBs and ASB Blanks in attracting mosquitoes (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 2.2, P = 0.137) (Fig. 7 b, Table 1 ). There was no significant difference between An. funestus and An. arabiensis (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 0.25, P = 0.6202) (Fig. 7 b, Table 1 ). There were also no significant differences between males and females of either species of mosquito in mean number of visits per baits per night (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 1.27, P = 0.2604 (Fig. 7 b, Table 1 ). Table 1 Total visits, mean visits per night and mean duration (min capped at 12 min) of mosquito visits to the ASB, or ASB Blank in the semi-field experiments broken down by treatment, mosquito species and sex. Treatment Species Gender Number visits Mean visits (95%CIs) Mean duration (95%CIs) ASB An. arabiensis female 10 1.1 (0, 2.9) 3.5 (1.5, 5.5) male 3 0.3 (0, 0.9) 4.7 (0, 20.4) both 13 1.4 (0, 3.3) 3.7 (1.6, 5.9) ASB An. funestus female 33 3.7 (0, 9.0) 4.8 (3.6, 5.9) male 1 0.1 (0, 0.4) 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) both 32 3.8 (0, 9.1) 4.7 (3.5, 5.8) ASB Ae. aegypti female 0 - - male 0 - - both 0 - - ASB Blank An. arabiensis female 0 - male 1 0.1 (0, 0.4) 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) both 1 0.1 (0, 0.4) 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) ASB Blank An. funestus female 7 0.8 (0, 2.0) 6.1 (1.0, 11.3) male 3 0.3 (0, 1.1) 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) both 10 1.1 (0, 3.0) 4.6 (0.9, 8.3) ASB Blank Ae. aegypti female 0 - - male 0 - - both 0 - - No significant differences were observed in the mean mosquito visit durations between ASBs and ASB blanks (Mann-Whitney, χ² = 1.19, P = 0.280) or between An. arabiensis and An. funestus (Mann-Whitney, χ² = 0.65, P = 0.420). However, female mosquitoes exhibited significantly longer stays on the baits compared to male mosquitoes (χ² = 6.8, P < 0.009). Overall, the timing of mosquitoes landing on the ASB and ASB blank in the semi-field system mainly ranged from 06:00 h to 11:00 h and 17:00 h to 22:00 h (Fig. 8 ). No Aedes aegypti visits were recorded on baits, therefore no analyses were conducted for that species. ASB versus Sucrose In semi-field experiments, no statistical difference was observed between ASBs and sucrose baits regarding the number of visits across both anopheline species (Chi-square of equal proportion - likelihood ratio: χ2 = 0.27, P = 0.605, Table 2 ). Overall, An. arabiensis visited baits significantly more than An. funestus (χ2 = 6.8, P < 0.009, Fig. 9 a, Table 2 ), with An. arabiensis preferring ASBs (χ2 = 5.0, P < 0.025) and An. funestus favoring sucrose (χ2 = 19.8, P < 0.001). Females from both species visited both bait types more than males (χ2 = 6.6, P = 0.010) (Fig. 9 a, Table 1 ). The mean number of visits per bait per night did not significantly differ between ASB and sucrose or between An. funestus and An. arabiensis (Fig. 9 b, Table 2 ). Nonetheless, female mosquitoes of both species visited baits more frequently than males (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 6.15, P = 0.013) (Fig. 9 b, Table 2 ). Table 2 Total number of visits, mean visits per night and mean visit duration (capped at 12 min) of mosquito visits to the ASB or sucrose in the semi-field experiment broken down by treatment, mosquito species and sex. Treatment Species Gender Number Visits Mean Visits (95%CIs) Mean Duration (95%CIs) ASB An. arabiensis female 16 2.7 (0, 5.9) 4.4 (3.4, 5.4) male 11 1.8 (0, 4.8) 4.6 (3.2, 5.9) both 27 4.5 (0, 10.2) 4.4 (3.7, 5.2) ASB An. funestus female 1 1.7 (0, 0.6) 5.0 (5.0, 5.0) male 0 - - both 1 1.7 (0, 0.6) 5.0 (5.0, 5.0) ASB Ae. aegypti female 0 - - male 0 - - both 0 - - Sucrose An. arabiensis female 12 2.0 (0.01, 4.0) 9.4 (7.0, 11.8) male 1 0.2 (0, 0.6) 12.0 (12.0, 12.0) both 13 2.2 (0.4, 4.0) 9.6 (7.4, 11.8) Sucrose An. funestus female 19 3.2 (0, 7.2) 8.8 (6.5, 11.2) male 0 - - both 19 3.2 (0, 7.2) 8.8 (6.5, 11.2) Sucrose Ae. aegypti female 0 - - male 0 - - both 0 - - Overall, there was a significantly shorter duration of mosquito visit on ASBs than on sucrose (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 13.98, P < 0.001, Table 2 ). There was no significant overall difference in visit duration between An. arabiensis and An. funestus (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 3.37, P = 0.062) even when considering An. arabiensis and An. funestus females only (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 1.6, P = 0.200, Table 2 ). Mosquitoes landed on the ASB and sucrose most frequently 05:00 h to 9:00 h and 17:00 h to 22:00 h (Fig. 10 ). There were no visits by Aedes aegypti , therefore no analyses were conducted for that species. Field experiment Human landing catches The HLCs performed on the same nights as the camera trap recordings showed that mosquito densities in Lupiro were high in May. Culex quinquefasciatus was the most common species landing on capturers with (223 ± 81 SD) per night per person and An. arabiensis was the next most common species landing with (60.8 ± 32 SD) per night per person. For An. arabiensis , HLC landings took place in all hours between 18:00 and 06:00 h but were most frequent between 19:00 and 00:00 (Fig. 12 ). The number of landings by C. quinquefasciatus were much higher and were particularly frequent between 19:00 h to 4:00 h in the morning after which they decreased (Fig. 12 ). ASBs vs ASB blanks vs sucrose In the field study, a total of 239 mosquitoes visited ASBs while only 6 mosquitoes visited the ASB blanks (χ2 = 283.28, P < 0.001, Fig. 13 a, Table 3 ). An. arabiensis led with 182 visits, followed by 56 C. quinquefasciatus and 7 An. funestus , showing significant difference in visitation rates (χ2 = 188.51, P 4.35, P < 0.037 in all cases, Fig. 13 , Table 3 ). Table 3 Total number of visits, mean visits per bait and night and mean duration (min capped at 12 min) of mosquito visits to the ASB, ASB blank or sucrose bait stations in the field experiment broken down by treatment, mosquito species and sex. Treatment Species Gender Number visits Mean visits (95%CIs) Mean duration (95%CIs) ASB An. arabiensis female 150 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) 4.6 (4.1, 5.1) male 32 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 2.3 (1.3, 3.0) both 182 1.1 (0.7, 1.5) 4.2 (3.7, 4.7) ASB An. funestus female 7 0.04 (0.01, 0.08) 3.6 (0.4, 6.8) male 0 - - both 7 0.04 (0.01, 0.08) 3.6 (0.4, 6.8) ASB C. quinquefasciatus female 31 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) 4.7 (3.1, 6.3) male 19 0.1 (0.05, 0.2) 3.0 (1.4, 4.5) both 50 0.3 (0.2, 0.4) 4.1 (3.0, 5.2) ASB blank An. arabiensis female 0 - - male 0 - - both 0 - - ASB blank An. funestus female 0 - - male 0 - - both 0 - - ASB blank C. quinquefasciatus female 2 0.01 (0, 0.03) 8.0 (0, 58.8) male 4 0.02 (0, 0.05) 2.6 (0, 6.0) both 6 0.04 (0, 0.07) 4.5 (0.3, 8.7) Sucrose An. arabiensis female 24 0.5 (0, 1.3) 6.9 (5.1, 8.6) male 0 - - both 24 0.5 (0, 1.3) 6.9 (5.1, 8.6) Sucrose An. funestus female 0 - - male 0 - both 0 - Sucrose C. quinquefasciatus female 9 0.2 (0, 0.4) 10 (7.4, 12.6) male 2 0.04 (0, 0.1) 2.0 (0, 14.7) both 11 0.2 (0, 0.4) 8.6 (5.6, 11.5) There was a significant difference in visit duration between ASB, ASB Blanks and sucrose bait, Kruskal-Wallis: χ2 = 16.26, P < 0.001 (Table 3 ) with mosquitoes spending more time on sucrose than on ASBs (Dunn test: Z = 4.02, P < 0.001) but not more than on ASB blanks (Dunn test: Z = 1.29, P = 0.587). Moreover, there was no significant difference in visit duration between An. arabiensis , An. funestus and C. quinquefasciatus (Mann-Whitney, χ2 = 0.63, P = 0.731, Table 3 ). No Aedes aegypti visited any baits in the field study. The mean number of visits per trap per night differed between treatment groups and followed the same overall pattern as that observed for the total number of visits, Kruskal-Wallis: χ2 = 130.40, P 2.75, P < 0.018 in both cases). Using the data from ASBs and ASB blanks for which the number of bait stations used was equal, we also fitted the number of visits by An. arabiensis and C. quinquefasciatus into two Nested General Linear Models to account for variation between camera stations (Table 4 ). The models confirm the very significant impact of treatment, camera station (nested within treatment) and date, on the frequency of visits of both species (Fig. 14 and Table 4 ). Female An. arabiensis visited baits more frequently than males, but no significant difference between sex was observed in C. quinquefasciatus (Table 4 ). Table 4 General linear models of the effect of treatment (ASB with or without attractant), mosquito sex, camera station and date on the mean number of visits per night to baits by An. arabiensis and C. quinquefasciatus . Species Effect Tests df χ2 P-value An. arabiensis Treatment 1 197.33 < 0.001 *** Sex 1 83.04 < 0.001*** Camera station [Treatment] 12 49.02 < 0.001 *** Date 22 96.65 < 0.001 *** C. quinquefasciatus Treatment 1 20.93 < 0.001 *** Sex 1 1.80 0.180 NS Camera station [Treatment] 12 36.21 < 0.001 *** Date 22 54.91 < 0.001 *** *** P < 0.0001; df: degrees of freedom NS; no significant difference Females and males of both species displayed similar patterns of nocturnal visits on ASBs. Camera stations recorded most landings between 5:00 to 7:00 am, and another but lesser peak of activity from 17:00h to 19:00h (Fig. 15 ). Very few visits took place in daytime, and these were made only by C. quinquefasciatus. Camera stations also recorded non-target organisms (NTOs) visiting ASBs. These were uncommon and detected on only 32 out of the total 423360 images analyzed as part of this study (0.0075%). NTOs were only found on 3 of the ASB stations and never on any of the ASB blanks or the sucrose baits. NTOs detected were ants, spiders, moths, wasps, and cockroaches. Of all the camera traps, camera number 817 was more visited by NTOs than the other camera traps (Table 5 ). Table 5 List of image files on which non-target organism species (NTOs) were recorded - these were identified to Order and Family. Image file Treatment Camera number Date Time Day/night Group Order Family common name 5080027 ASB 817 08/05/2022 05:02 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5080028 ASB 817 08/05/2022 05:03 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5080038 ASB 817 08/05/2022 05:13 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5080068 ASB 817 08/05/2022 05:43 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5080069 ASB 817 08/05/2022 05:44 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5080242 ASB 817 08/05/2022 08:38 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5080244 ASB 817 08/05/2022 08:39 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5120035 ASB 773 12/05/2022 03:19 Night Invertebrate Lepidoptera moth 5120043 ASB 773 12/05/2022 03:27 Night Invertebrate Lepidoptera moth 5140190 ASB 817 14/05/2022 13:49 Day Invertebrate Hymenoptera Vespidae wasp 5140191 ASB 817 14/05/2022 13:50 Day Invertebrate Hymenoptera Vespidae wasp 5140452 ASB 817 14/05/2022 01:32 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5140504 ASB 817 14/05/2022 19:04 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5140598 ASB 817 14/05/2022 03:58 Night Invertebrate Blattodea Blattidae cockroach 5140704 ASB 817 14/05/2022 22:23 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5150037 ASB 771 15/05/2022 04:02 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5150073 ASB 771 15/05/2022 04:38 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5150074 ASB 771 15/05/2022 04:39 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5150076 ASB 771 15/05/2022 04:41 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5150127 ASB 771 15/05/2022 05:32 Night Invertebrate Hymenoptera Formicidae ant 5150828 ASB 817 15/05/2022 00:27 Night Vertebrate Squamata Gekkonidae house gecko 5170358 ASB 817 17/05/2022 10:16 Day Invertebrate Diptera Psychodidae moth fly 5170359 ASB 817 17/05/2022 10:17 Day Invertebrate Diptera Psychodidae moth fly 5170497 ASB 771 17/05/2022 12:58 Day Invertebrate Hymenoptera Vespidae wasp 5180032 ASB 817 18/05/2022 14:06 Day Invertebrate Hemiptera Aphididae aphid 5140033 ASB 771 18/05/2022 14:31 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5180034 ASB 771 18/05/2022 14:32 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5200244 ASB 773 20/05/2022 07:22 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5200271 ASB 817 20/05/2022 16:26 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5230036 ASB 817 23/05/2022 07:10 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5230037 ASB 817 23/05/2022 07:11 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider 5230038 ASB 817 23/05/2022 07:12 Day Invertebrate Aranaea spider Discussion The present study evaluated the attractiveness of the ASB Sarabi v1.2.1 developed by Westham Co. for mosquito vectors in a region of South-Central Tanzania with both malaria and dengue transmission using a camera station. This is the first study to demonstrate that such camera stations offer a simple solution for assessing and comparing the attractiveness of ASBs and other potential mosquito attractants in semi-field and field settings. In the semi-field system, comparisons between Westham ASB Sarabi v1.2.1 and sucrose solution showed that mosquitoes overall were similarly attracted to both. This is in line with a previous study conducted in Coastal Tanzania which found that locally made ASBs were equally attractive to sucrose solution [ 22 ]. Here, however, in the semi-field system, An. arabiensis visited the ASBs more than the sucrose solution whereas An. funestus did not. Comparisons between ASBs and ASB blanks lacking the attractive odour blend also showed that the ASB attractant was attractive to the mosquitoes in the semi-field system. The low overall number of mosquito visits observed in relation to the number of mosquitoes released in these experiments may be attributed to the fact that they were carried out during the dry season which made for low overall mosquito activity. Fewer visits also meant lower statistical power, thus seasonality and patterns of mosquito activity play a major role in the success and need for replication in such experiments. In contrast to that the field studies were conducted during the rainy season and showed more definitively that the ASB attractant which was used in the Westham ASB stations v1.2.1 is very effective in attracting mosquitoes when compared to the ASB blank in the control arm. This confirms that the attraction of the Westham ASB station is associated with its odour bait and therefore that olfactory attraction appears more important than any visual attraction of the bait station. It is noteworthy, that despite the clear attraction of An. arabiensis and C. quinquefasciatus to ASBs, the results obtained from the human landing catch conducted simultaneously with the camera recordings suggest a relatively low overall attractiveness of these ASB v1.2.1 stations compared to humans. HLCs indicated that mosquito densities in Lupiro village were high during the month of May, which aligns with the rainy season in the region. On average, 378 mosquitoes landed on capturers per night compared to an average of 2 landings on baits per night. Our findings suggest two hypotheses regarding the observed low visitation to the baits when compared to the HLC. Firstly, it may be possible that sugar feeding on the ASB bait stations is limited during the rainy season as there are a lot of flowers and fruits that mosquitoes can rely on for sugar at that time. In such circumstances, mosquitoes may feed mainly on natural sugar sources because of their abundance compared to the limited number of ASBs. This first hypothesis, therefore, focuses on sugar usage as a dietary complement for body maintenance and energy for flight and mating. A slightly different explanation would be that the high availability of water sources reduces the reliance on nectar, which can be sought by mosquitoes both for its water and sugar content. During the rainy period, mosquitoes might reduce their reliance on nectar or sugar solution because they find water droplets or puddles very easily and thus exhibit an overall reduced attraction to natural sugar sources and artificial baits. Thus, in future, it will be important to understand the dynamics of sugar feeding, in relation to its dual role as a source of water and or energy, and its changes in availability throughout different seasons. Interestingly, the data collected from the two stations baited with sucrose suggest that the ASB attractant performed better compared to this comparator in the field, which contrasts with the finding in the semi-field system. However, there were only two sucrose stations available for the field comparison and so further work is required to confirm that finding. Further work using larger sample sizes should also demonstrate whether ASB competes well in terms of long-range attraction with natural sources of sugar and nectar and under what conditions. Further studies should, therefore, formally test the efficacy of ASB attractant across different seasons and geographical sites to highlight the relationship between natural sugar availability and ASB efficacy. With regard to the specificity of the ASB attractant, this study confirmed that the Westham ASB attractant was most attractive to An. arabiensis compared to An. funestus in the Kilombero Valley. However this has to be tested in the semi-field to see if it is related to relative survival or ASB attractiveness. An. arabiensis made longer visits to the ASB station with attractant and sucrose bait system than on ASB blank, that is a good indication that feeding activities took place.Although An. arabiensis were more frequently found on ASBs in the field, it's essential to note that this species was generally more abundant than An. funestus according to HLCs. Therefore, the higher presence of An. arabiensis on ASBs isn't necessarily indicative of greater attraction to these baits. Additionally, in the[ 35 ] Zambia field trial, a higher proportion of An. funestus were observed to have fed on ASBs compared to An. arabiensis . This finding underscores the importance of considering species-specific feeding behaviors and abundances in evaluating the efficacy and attractiveness of control measures such as ASBs. Whilst the baits tested here did not include a killing agent, it remains important that mosquitoes not only explore the baits but effectively feed on them to pick up a sufficient dose of killing agent [ 22 ]. C. quinquefasciatus also fed on ASBs, but their numbers on baits were much less than expected given their great abundance in HLC catches. Ae. aegypti was never observed on the baits in the field despite being present in HLC catches, although at very low numbers. Under semi-field settings, this species was only very rarely observed on the baits. This would suggest that Ae. aegypti might require a different blend of attractants or may be even more prone to feeding on natural sugar sources than Anopheles or Culex . Additionally, this study highlighted other important mosquito behavioural factors, such as sex-specific differences in attraction to sugar feeding In our study, female mosquitoes visited more the ASB than male mosquitoes, which may imply that the ASB attractant or bait format is more attractive to female mosquitoes but less so for males, though semi-field sex comparisons may have been affected by relative survival rate. In contrast to our finding, a field study that used the ASB station v1.1.1 developed by Westham Co. in Zambia, observed a higher proportion of uranine positive male mosquitoes than females, implying that male mosquitoes were feeding more on the bait stations [ 35 ]. Our finding of female attraction to ATSBs in South-Central Tanzania supports the potential use of ASBs for malaria control programmes in that region as female mosquitoes are the ones responsible for blood feeding on hosts, hence transmitting pathogens [ 36 ]. Interestingly, the present study documented for the first time and through direct observation the timing of landing on the baits in the field by different species. In the field, landing on the ASB started from 17:00 h and continued till 20:00 h in the evening, with a second peak of landings taking place around 5:00 h to 7:00 h in the morning. Therefore the start and end time of sugar feeding activity were comparable to those observed in host seeking female An. arabiensis and C. quinquefasciatus from the HLC sampling performed in this study which has also in line with studies describing the natural host seeking behaviour of An. gambiae s.l. An.arabiensis and An. funestus (Degefa et al., 2021; Kabbale et al., 2013). However, unlike for host-seeking, our results and those of other studies show that sugar feeding starts early in the evening and continues for 3–4 h, followed by a clear drop in activity later at night and another distinct peak of activity early in the morning (Degefa et al. 2021; Kabbale et al. 2013 Müller et al. 2010) In order to assess the proportion of male and female sugar feeding ahead of ATSB trials, other studies have used the cold anthrone method to detect sugar uptake in anopheline species [ 39 ]. Another approach used consisted in collecting the content of light-traps baited with flowers at 1h time intervals to infer the timing of feeding on natural sugar by male and female An. gambiae s.l. [ 21 ]. It is noteworthy that such indirect methods cannot possibly generate data on the relative proportion and timing of visits to baits by vector species as accurately as those measured from direct visual recording on ASB as implemented in this study. The camera stations deployed in the field also generated important data on visits by non-target organisms (NTOs) to the baits. These visits were rare and the taxa involved included Araneae (spiders), Hymenoptera (ants, wasps), and Lepidoptera (moths). Such observations are in line with findings from previous studies [ 40 – 44 ]. The latter studies relied on identifying NTOs that fed from ATSB through detecting food dye or staining in all insects collected by Malaise traps, plate traps, UV traps, sweep nets, and pitfall traps [ 40 – 44 ]. The varying efficacy of the trapping and marking methods used and complexity of detection in these studies make them susceptible to various biases. Camera stations are a much more direct method for recording the attraction to baits of any NTO taxa, including visits by vertebrates such as that of a gecko which our study recorded. We also found variation in local NTO abundance between ASBs with Camera number 817 recording more NTO visits than other camera traps. This may be attributed to the location of that camera trap at the fringe of the village in a wooded area. No serious issues with the camera stations were observed. The camera traps produced adequate image quality with no major difficulties in recognizing species and determining the sex of mosquitoes. No major data collection difficulties were encountered, except that identifying images positive for mosquitoes or NTOs from all generated images takes time. It is important to note that mosquitoes, being cold-blooded organisms, cannot trigger the camera's built-in passive infrared trigger when landing on the ATSB or entering the camera's field of view. Therefore, we recommend using a 24 h time-lapse approach with images taken at 1 min intervals for tracking mosquito landings in ATSB studies. The downside of that approach is that one camera trap will produce approximately 4,320 images per 72 h. To save time in viewing all those images, we converted 24 h stacks of images into mp4 video files using the Mac iMovie software. This enabled fast scrolling through the video created to quickly detect those frames with mosquitoes and recording their landing and departure times. The possibility of analyzing videos using more elaborate image analyses software assisted by machine learning is currently being evaluated [ 45 , 46 ]. One important finding from our dry season semi-field experiments comparing ASBs to ASB blanks was that when conditions in enclosures were very dry (above 35°C), mosquitoes did not engage at all in our experiments and hid and died. Considering that 198 mosquitoes were released in the experimental chamber and observations were made for 72 h, we collected very few positive images of mosquitoes landing on the ASB. Thus, mosquitoes seemed to have hidden in the clay pots provided to mitigate desiccation but did not visit the ASB attractant under those conditions. Considering these observations, predicting what level of ASB visitation will be detected under field conditions during very dry weather is difficult. Whilst increased sugar feeding is expected as long as mosquitoes are active, very harsh conditions are also likely to induce further protective behaviour such as actively avoiding open and arid locations, thus enabling them to conserve moisture and survive. This might include seeking shelter, resting in cool and shaded areas, and even estivating [ 47 , 48 ]. In addition to threshold levels of drought tolerance, the availability and quality of sugar sources to mosquitoes may also play a role. In the dry season, natural sugar sources such as nectar-producing plants might be scarce, further increasing the attractiveness of sugar-based attractants like those used in ASBs to mosquitoes. This is supported by a study in central Tanzania in semi-field enclosures where dense-, sparse- and no-vegetation settings were simulated during the dry and wet seasons; ATSBs were more visited under the bare site without any vegetation settings than the one with dense or sparse vegetation [ 49 ]. Though that study was performed in the semi-field with a controlled environment in both dry and rainy seasons, it further emphasizes the need for field studies comparing ATSB attractiveness in settings or regions with dense vegetation and rich in flowering plants and in regions with sparse or semi-arid areas to understand the full complexity of sugar feeding behaviour of mosquitoes in the field across the season. The camera traps used in this study are well suited for this purpose because they can generate direct data for comparisons of ATSB attractiveness in different settings. In the field setting, it may be difficult to rely on detecting food dye[ 11 ] or the uranine marker (the Westham ASB used in this study had a uranine marker while the ASB blank had no marker) to estimate the percentage of mosquitoes that have fed on the ASB under investigation [ 35 ]. The recapture rate in the field is normally very low, due to the harsh conditions of the environment [ 50 ]. It is, therefore, difficult to trace or capture a mosquito that visited and fed on the ASB bait station without mass ASB deployment. Additionally, the position of traps seems to be critical in assessing feeding rate if using a bait dye in the field (uranine or food dye). Studies conducted in Mali, West Africa successfully used a glue trap method to evaluate the relative attractiveness of ATSBs in the field, however the smell of glue itself can have a repellent effect [ 21 ]. Here again, the camera trap method can be used to assess the attraction of ATSBs without the need to deploy large numbers of ATSBs and positioning glue or other traps to indirectly evaluate ATSB attractiveness in the field. The camera stations allow a simple measure of attraction whereas trap-based feeding rate assessments, though important, may further depend on: 1) the short-range stimulus needed to feed once mosquitoes have landed, 2) the accessibility of the bait, and 3) its palatability. So the use of the camera traps in the field may arguably generate the best measure of ATSB attractiveness independent of any other factors. Further studies may be necessary to understand whether all the landings observed led to effective feeding. This could simply be established through comparing landing rates estimated by camera stations to feeding rates estimated via dye detection in semi-field studies. Conclusion The use of a camera trap recording still images of mosquitoes present on ATSBs provides robust, reproducible and quantitative information on the attractiveness of different ATSBs and similar devices under different environmental conditions. Therefore, modified camera traps are powerful tools for evaluating mosquitoes interacting with a sugar bait, or other attractive product, under semi-field and field conditions. This study demonstrated that the ASB attractant used in the ASB stations v1.2.1. by Westham is attractive to An. arabiensis in semi-field and field conditions and rarely attracted NTOs. Future studies using the same camera stations would help clarify the complex relationship between seasonality, rainfall, drought, sugar source availability and their impact on absolute and relative ATSB attractiveness. Abbreviations ATSB Attractive Targeted Sugar Bait IHI Ifakara Health Institute IRB Institutional Review Board ITNs Insecticide Treated Bed Nets, NIMR:National Institute for Medical Research HLC Human Landing Catch IRS indoor residual spraying. Declarations Ethical approval and consent to participate Before beginning field work, permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the Ifakara Health Institute (IHI/IRB/AMM/ No: 24- 2021) and the Medical Research Coordination Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research in Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3777). Consent for publication Written informed consent was obtained from volunteers for participation in the study, and for publication of this report and any accompanying images. Availability of data and materials Access and use of data supporting this article will have to comply with the Ifakara Health Institute data sharing policy. If data are requested and no competing interest is apparent, the requested data will be made available under defined conditions expressed in writing through an exchange of letters between parties stipulating those conditions and any agreed limits to use thereof. Competing interest All authors declare no competing interest. Authors’ contributions FCM conducted the experiments. FT and SA customized the cameras. FCM and FT designed the study protocol, contributed to the study design, analysis, and interpretation. FCM and FT performed data analysis, interpreted the results and FCM drafted the manuscript. FT, FO, SJM and FCT provided comments upon the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to Ron Knapper and Ash Leake whose insights and experience made the camera's customization possible. Our appreciation to Dawson Mziray, Shabani Hangahanga, Issa Kalulu, and Faidini Sango for their help in facilitating semi-field and field studies, Mwangungulu Stephen for the Lupiro map, and all the volunteers for their commitment to this work. Also, we sincerely give our appreciation to Seth Irish and Michel Tripet for cross-identifying the NTO to order or family level. Funding This study was funded by IVCC through support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (grant: INV-007509), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) (grant: 81067480) and UK Aid (grant: 30041-105). The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, SDC or UK Aid. References Organization WH. World malaria report 2022. World Health Organization; 2022. World Health Organization. Dengue and severe dengue [Internet]. World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland; 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue Torto B. Innovative approaches to exploit host plant metabolites in malaria control. Pest Manag Sci. 2019; Müller GC, Kravchenko VD, Schlein Y. Decline of Anopheles sergentii and Aedes caspius populations following presentation of attractive toxic (spinosad) sugar bait stations in an oasis. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008;24:147–9. Foster WA. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annu Rev Entomol. 1995;40:443–74. Müller G, Schlein Y. Sugar questing mosquitoes in arid areas gather on scarce blossoms that can be used for control. Int J Parasitol. 2006;36:1077–80. Nyasembe VO, Torto B. Volatile phytochemicals as mosquito semiochemicals. Phytochem Lett. 2014;8:196–201. Nyasembe VO, Tchouassi DP, Pirk CWW, Sole CL, Torto B. Host plant forensics and olfactory-based detection in Afro-tropical mosquito disease vectors. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006185. Stewart ZP, Oxborough RM, Tungu PK, Kirby MJ, Rowland MW, Irish SR. Indoor application of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) in combination with mosquito nets for control of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e84168. Furnival-Adams JEC, Camara S, Rowland M, Koffi AA, Ahoua Alou LP, Oumbouke WA, et al. Indoor use of attractive toxic sugar bait in combination with long-lasting insecticidal net against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae: an experimental hut trial in Mbe, central Cote d’Ivoire. Malar J. 2020;19:1–11. Traore MM, Junnila A, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Revay EE, Kravchenko VD, et al. Large-scale field trial of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for the control of malaria vector mosquitoes in Mali, West Africa. Malar J. 2020;19:1–16. Sangbakembi-Ngounou C, Costantini C, Longo-Pendy NM, Ngoagouni C, Akone-Ella O, Rahola N, et al. Diurnal biting of malaria mosquitoes in the Central African Republic indicates residual transmission may be “out of control.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119:e2104282119. Russell TL, Govella NJ, Azizi S, Drakeley CJ, Kachur SP, Killeen GF. Increased proportions of outdoor feeding among residual malaria vector populations following increased use of insecticide-treated nets in rural Tanzania. Malar J. 2011;10:80. Cohen JM, Okumu F, Moonen B. The fight against malaria: Diminishing gains and growing challenges. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14:eabn3256. Sougoufara S, Ottih EC, Tripet F. The need for new vector control approaches targeting outdoor biting Anopheline malaria vector communities. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:1–15. Fraser KJ, Mwandigha L, Traore SF, Traore MM, Doumbia S, Junnila A, et al. Estimating the potential impact of Attractive Targeted Sugar Baits (ATSBs) as a new vector control tool for Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Malar J. 2021;20:1–13. Qualls WA, Müller GC, Traore SF, Traore MM, Arheart KL, Doumbia S, et al. Indoor use of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) to effectively control malaria vectors in Mali, West Africa. Malar J. 2015;14:1–8. Maia MF, Tenywa FC, Nelson H, Kambagha A, Ashura A, Bakari I, et al. Attractive toxic sugar baits for controlling mosquitoes: a qualitative study in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. Malar J. 2018;17:22. Beier JC, Müller GC, Gu W, Arheart KL, Schlein Y. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) methods decimate populations of Anopheles malaria vectors in arid environments regardless of the local availability of favoured sugar-source blossoms. Malar J. 2012;11:10.1186. Müller GC, Schlein Y. Efficacy of toxic sugar baits against adult cistern-dwelling Anopheles claviger . Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102:480–4. Müller GC, Beier JC, Traore SF, Toure MB, Traore MM, Bah S, et al. Field experiments of Anopheles gambiae attraction to local fruits/seedpods and flowering plants in Mali to optimize strategies for malaria vector control in Africa using attractive toxic sugar bait methods. Malar J. 2010;9:1–11. Tenywa FC, Kambagha A, Saddler A, Maia MF. The development of an ivermectin-based attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) to target Anopheles arabiensis . Malar J. 2017. Parsons GJI, Lees RS, Balaska S, Vontas J. A Practical Insecticide Resistance Monitoring Bioassay for Orally Ingested Dinotefuran in Anopheles Malaria Vectors. Insects. 2022;13:311. Stell FM, Roe RM, Arellano C, Kennedy L, Thornton H, Saavedra‐Rodriguez K, et al. Proof of concept for a novel insecticide bioassay based on sugar feeding by adult Aedes aegypti (Stegomyia aegypti). Med Vet Entomol. 2013;27:284–97. Collett RA, Fisher DO. Time‐lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods. Ecol Evol. 2017;7:7527–33. Dundas SJ, Ruthrof KX, Hardy GESJ, Fleming PA. Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles. Wildlife Research. 2019;46:104–13. Ng’habi KRN, Mwasheshi D, Knols BGJ, Ferguson HM. Establishment of a self-propagating population of the African malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis under semi-field conditions. Malar J. 2010;9:356. Ng’habi K, Viana M, Matthiopoulos J, Lyimo I, Killeen G, Ferguson HM. Mesocosm experiments reveal the impact of mosquito control measures on malaria vector life history and population dynamics. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–12. Ferguson HM, Ng’habi KR, Walder T, Kadungula D, Moore SJ, Lyimo I, et al. Establishment of a large semi-field system for experimental study of African malaria vector ecology and control in Tanzania. Malar J. 2008;7:1–15. Kaindoa EW, Matowo NS, Ngowo HS, Mkandawile G, Mmbando A, Finda M, et al. Interventions that effectively target Anopheles funestus mosquitoes could significantly improve control of persistent malaria transmission in south–eastern Tanzania. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0177807. Matowo NS, Munhenga G, Tanner M, Coetzee M, Feringa WF, Ngowo HS, et al. Fine-scale spatial and temporal heterogeneities in insecticide resistance profiles of the malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-eastern Tanzania. Wellcome Open Res. 2017;2. Farajollahi A, Condon GC, Campbell IV EE, McCuiston L. Glass, Rubber, and Nylon: How to Make A Mouth Aspirator On A Budget For Handling Adult Mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2011;27:444–6. Gillies MT, Coetzee M. A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara. Publ S Afr Inst Med Res. 1987;55:1–143. Coetzee M. Key to the females of Afrotropical Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Malar J. 2020;19:1–20. Chanda J, Wagman J, Chanda B, Kaniki T, Ng’andu M, Muyabe R, et al. Feeding rates of malaria vectors from a prototype attractive sugar bait station in Western Province, Zambia: results of an entomological validation study. Malar J. 2023;22:1–15. Scott TW, Takken W. Feeding strategies of anthropophilic mosquitoes result in increased risk of pathogen transmission. Trends Parasitol. 2012;28:114–21. Degefa T, Githeko AK, Lee M-C, Yan G, Yewhalaw D. Patterns of human exposure to early evening and outdoor biting mosquitoes and residual malaria transmission in Ethiopia. Acta Trop. 2021;216:105837. Kabbale FG, Akol AM, Kaddu JB, Onapa AW. Biting patterns and seasonality of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato and Anopheles funestus mosquitoes in Kamuli District, Uganda. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:1–9. Omondi S, Kosgei J, Agumba S, Polo B, Yalla N, Moshi V, et al. Natural sugar feeding rates of Anopheles mosquitoes collected by different methods in western Kenya. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20596. Diarra RA, Traore MM, Junnila A, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Revay EE, et al. Testing configurations of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) stations in Mali, West Africa, for improving the control of malaria parasite transmission by vector mosquitoes and minimizing their effect on non-target insects. Malar J. 2021;20:1–9. Qualls WA, Müller GC, Revay EE, Allan SA, Arheart KL, Beier JC, et al. Evaluation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB)—barrier for control of vector and nuisance mosquitoes and its effect on non-target organisms in sub-tropical environments in Florida. Acta Trop. 2014;131:104–10. Revay EE, Müller GC, Qualls WA, Kline DL, Naranjo DP, Arheart KL, et al. Control of Aedes albopictus with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) and potential impact on non-target organisms in St. Augustine, Florida. Parasitol Res. 2014;113:73–9. Revay EE, Schlein Y, Tsabari O, Kravchenko V, Qualls W, De-Xue R, et al. Formulation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) with safe EPA-exempt substance significantly diminishes the Anopheles sergentii population in a desert oasis. Acta Trop. 2015;150:29–34. Khallaayoune K, Qualls WA, Revay EE, Allan SA, Arheart KL, Kravchenko VD, et al. Attractive toxic sugar baits: control of mosquitoes with the low-risk active ingredient dinotefuran and potential impacts on nontarget organisms in Morocco. Environ Entomol. 2013;42:1040–5. Muñoz JP, Boger R, Dexter S, Low R. Mosquitoes and public health: Improving data validation of citizen science contributions using computer vision. Delivering Superior Health and Wellness Management with IoT and Analytics. Springer; 2020. p. 469–93. Kittichai V, Pengsakul T, Chumchuen K, Samung Y, Sriwichai P, Phatthamolrat N, et al. Deep learning approaches for challenging species and gender identification of mosquito vectors. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1–14. Huestis DL, Lehmann T. Ecophysiology of Anopheles gambiae sl: persistence in the Sahel. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2014;28:648–61. Adamou A, Dao A, Timbine S, Kassogué Y, Yaro AS, Diallo M, et al. The contribution of aestivating mosquitoes to the persistence of Anopheles gambiae in the Sahel. Malar J. 2011;10. Muyaga LL, Meza FC, Kahamba NF, Njalambaha RM, Msugupakulya BJ, Kaindoa EW, et al. Effects of vegetation densities on the performance of attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) for malaria vector control: a semi-field study. Malar J. 2023;22:1–13. Guerra CA, Reiner RC, Perkins TA, Lindsay SW, Midega JT, Brady OJ, et al. A global assembly of adult female mosquito mark-release-recapture data to inform the control of mosquito-borne pathogens. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:1–15. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files ATSBcameratrapSupplementaryInformationFiles.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4450332","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":308616183,"identity":"8944d981-e637-4c21-a9b3-e4c13db0f935","order_by":0,"name":"Felician C Meza","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ifakara Health Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Felician","middleName":"C","lastName":"Meza","suffix":""},{"id":308616184,"identity":"69b5b458-7ef1-46a1-b06e-58e2dede583b","order_by":1,"name":"Frank C Tenywa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ifakara Health Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frank","middleName":"C","lastName":"Tenywa","suffix":""},{"id":308616185,"identity":"13b985b6-a955-4e0f-9d53-83f4d3a98ab5","order_by":2,"name":"Simon Ashall","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Keele University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simon","middleName":"","lastName":"Ashall","suffix":""},{"id":308616186,"identity":"ec65585d-9bf9-44d5-ad02-937d9522720f","order_by":3,"name":"Fredros O Okumu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ifakara Health Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fredros","middleName":"O","lastName":"Okumu","suffix":""},{"id":308616187,"identity":"87c6bf51-3e65-49ef-b4a5-775beddf1c34","order_by":4,"name":"Sarah Moore","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ifakara Health Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Moore","suffix":""},{"id":308616188,"identity":"b3a7a594-aa8e-44e0-a7ee-1227f6bd688a","order_by":5,"name":"Frederic Tripet","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Keele University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frederic","middleName":"","lastName":"Tripet","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-05-20 16:41:44","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4450332/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4450332/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":57518110,"identity":"afdc9da0-3276-473c-9669-bbac929d4958","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":320032,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe prototype camera rig set-up in the Keele insectaries. The two LED flash-units built in the camera were rewired and re-positioned on side brackets. The close-up filter was originally held in place with rubber bands and a piece of Styrofoam (red arrow)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/aa0d3b52b79ece7824f2e950.png"},{"id":57518111,"identity":"d4bb3db8-2a5a-4cdc-91f1-e1d7956f3ae9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":388135,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAn adapter designed to hold a close-up filter in front of the dual lenses of the Bushnell CoreDS trail camera was developed for 3D-printing in collaboration with Keele School of Computing.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/43a2be550ce5501f328e705d.png"},{"id":57518661,"identity":"9d78b287-e5b3-4096-b3fc-3566ea208bf6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:36:34","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":284681,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eImages of Westham ASB station with attractant (Version 1.0), taken within a large cage to optimize the system. Fluorescent tube light was used for \"day light\" optimization, and the repositioned infrared flashes for night images.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/0d8100218e441f3d844c2bcb.png"},{"id":57518114,"identity":"286b1452-fd51-42bf-a0f4-0864bd3118c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":396096,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTesting of camera stations (top right and bottom images) for monitoring of landing on ASB with attractant, ASB blank and 20% sucrose (bottom right) inside the net chambers and cages (top left).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/f4606dd18b51794882464653.png"},{"id":57518117,"identity":"074dd81c-6871-4ca0-94b5-710706d026d9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":463742,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA map showing the locations of the camera traps in the field in Lupiro village, in south-eastern Tanzania.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/932297b1b249c5f590257fac.png"},{"id":57518120,"identity":"cda9caa3-96ac-49cc-a63e-2fad98f780e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":163834,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe camera station was designed with 4 aluminum plates locked into position and creating a rigid frame to support the camera safety box and bait holding plate and served as anchoring base and roof. The sides were made of heavy steel mesh, adding to rigidity and sturdiness of the tamper-proof, animal-proof structure.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/83f5bf2d9e97601b13433a74.png"},{"id":57518126,"identity":"0ef29d99-a22e-4ce6-85e6-d874cc249f8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":52217,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal number of mosquito visits \u003cstrong\u003e(a),\u003c/strong\u003e and mean number of visits per baits per night (95% confidence intervals) \u003cstrong\u003e(b),\u003c/strong\u003e to the ASB or ASB blank in semi-field experiments\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/4ef9a7c711c43a2b5df321aa.png"},{"id":57518663,"identity":"689f6b88-0ca7-402c-949d-79288c0dcd8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:36:34","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83422,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTiming of landing of mosquito species and sex on the ASB and ASB blank in the semi-field cage as recorded by the camera traps\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/3de177ec64ec6780e187ac78.png"},{"id":57518124,"identity":"6fe85a1b-b310-4569-bb94-acfeaf540699","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49899,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal number of mosquito visits \u003cstrong\u003e(a),\u003c/strong\u003eand mean number of mosquito visits per night (95% CIs) \u003cstrong\u003e(b)\u003c/strong\u003e, by species and sex to the ASB or sucrose bait stations in the semi-field system\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/d8315e37957a819c79c6e87a.png"},{"id":57518118,"identity":"6a971c59-5a4d-4338-8050-867f932708bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":89768,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTiming of landing of mosquito species and sex on the ASB and sucrose in semi-field experiments as recorded by the camera traps\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/268a9fbb7866d3103171183b.png"},{"id":57518121,"identity":"149e8061-18e7-4f6a-b0b2-bad9a7d91da9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":115731,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMosquito species composition and densities described by human landing catch \u003cbr\u003e\n(HLC)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/d6d38b8746090da8cbfae05d.png"},{"id":57518125,"identity":"91f4da74-a77a-4704-8924-364b43cb75c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86101,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean number of female mosquitoes caught by human landing catch performed on the same nights as the camera trap assessments, showing the landing time at which mosquitoes were caught. Error bars represent the standard deviation from the mean (SD).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/22e2f020f19b31d6166b615c.png"},{"id":57518122,"identity":"01181387-ca99-4b3b-ae5a-2bb761ed0a18","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62794,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal number of mosquito visits by species and sex (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e), and mean number of mosquito visits per bait per night (95% CIs) (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e), to the ASB, ASB blank or sucrose bait in the field.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/102fea05961d975fdcd7b6b6.png"},{"id":57518123,"identity":"d222681a-c089-488d-a29a-25535978b5f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:35","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":77373,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal number visits of mosquitoes per camera trap (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e), and mean visits of mosquitoes per camera trap per night per treatment (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e), in each treatment in the field\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"14.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/5f8cc47a32ff0112e6728a2c.png"},{"id":57518115,"identity":"38bd1d17-59c3-4b28-a662-655a6e999f0f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:28:34","extension":"png","order_by":15,"title":"Figure 15","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83415,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTime of total landings on ASBs (with and without bait) in camera stations in the field, by mosquito species and sex.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"15.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/18062360f54a0943321bfd21.png"},{"id":60937392,"identity":"a825fa1e-d3f5-4b9d-bb5f-3219f5f73360","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-23 19:44:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4935116,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/bf7ea633-3702-4cab-b28d-bcd94e4c2e20.pdf"},{"id":57518662,"identity":"3b578dae-eb35-4721-b2a8-ac9c3734f5d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:36:34","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":287949,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ATSBcameratrapSupplementaryInformationFiles.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4450332/v1/1a06b959c7df77ff2b68e0d5.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eMosquitoes are responsible for putting nearly half of the world's population at risk of malaria and dengue. In 2021, there were an estimated 619 000 death and 247\u0026nbsp;million cases of malaria worldwide, with an estimated 100\u0026ndash;400\u0026nbsp;million dengue infections occurring each year [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Improved control of malaria and dengue vectors requires new interventions that can work synergistically with existing interventions such as Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) and Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS)(Torto, 2019). Attractive Targeted Sugar Bait (ATSB) is one example of such complementary tools and is widely expected to enter widespread use in the near future. ATSBs exploit the mosquito sugar feeding behaviours, by luring individuals onto a sugar-laden target that is also treated with a killing agent, such as insecticide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Both male and female mosquitoes depend on plant sugars such as nectar from flowers and sap from leaves and plant stems, to obtain energy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. A growing body of evidence has shown that Afrotropical malaria and dengue mosquitoes regularly feed on plant sugars in their natural environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. It is thus plausible that female mosquitoes make use of plant odours to associate with host plants; and it has recently shown that \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e females can detect plant derived sesquiterpenes and alkenes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA number of ATSBs with different attractants have been developed, and tested either in the laboratory, semi-field cages, experimental huts or field trials [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. These tests have proved that ATSBs are a promising intervention that can complement existing vector control tools, in tackling even insecticide resistant, and outdoor or day-time biting mosquitoes in arid and semi-arid areas [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. In the tropics, where there is dense vegetation rich in sugar sources, ATSBs may be located near mosquito breeding habitats, outdoors and even indoors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. In this context, it is particularly critical to select effective attractants for the ATSBs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current Sarabi ATSB stations developed by Westham Co. have a permeable membrane that encloses the bait mixture (attractant, sugar, with or without active ingredient). The permeable membrane allows mosquitoes to feed through it and attractants to pass through it but is strong enough to protect the bait mixture from excessive leaking as well as environmental hazards such as rain, dehydration, ultra-violet light and others. These baits are thought to be unattractive and/or inaccessible to non-targets organisms (NTOs), such as bees, butterflies, etc. Previous versions of these ATSBs were very effective in targeting malaria vectors in a field trial in Mali [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Since then, a new ATSB design (version 1.2.1) is under evaluation in Mali, Kenya, and Zambia in partnership with the Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC) and was included in this study albeit without its toxic agent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaboratory, semi-field and field trial systems are needed to evaluate the attractiveness of mosquitoes to ATSBs. Most studies on assessing the attractiveness of ATSB rely on using a version of the bait without insecticide (referred to as Attractive Sugar Bait, ASB) and coloring it with food dye or including the dye in ASB sprayed on vegetation to measure the proportion of captured mosquitoes which have fed on the bait [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR19 CR20\" citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Mosquitoes that have fed on the ASB attractant mixed with food dyes are identified by looking for the food dye in their abdomens and are scored as fed if the dye is detected. These methods require experienced personnel who may be able to detect the dye and observe engorged abdomens of mosquitoes even when the mosquitoes have consumed small meals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Some studies use a fluorescent dye rather than a food dye to identify which mosquitoes have fed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] or trypan blue dye as a visual marker which is readily detected within the mosquito abdomens and the blue faecal spots provide more evidence of sugar feeding [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Besides requiring a fluorescent microscope and trained personnel, the dyes could potentially affect the attractiveness or palatability of the bait and therefore alter the feeding rate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], thus leading to low feeding rates and undermining the efficacy of the attractant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver the last decade, driven by a strong demand by hobbyists (hunters, photographers, garden owners) and professionals (nature conservationists, biologists, environmentalists, and others), trail camera traps have become smaller and gained capabilities of higher definition pictures, and HD videos. Importantly, prices have gone down and at less than \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e100 per camera, with their small size, waterproofing and low battery consumption, they have become an important tool for ecologists [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address the need for reproducible and quantitative information on mosquito responses to lethal sugar baits, this study investigated the use of scalable camera trap stations to evaluate the attractiveness of ASBs under both semi-field and field settings. The cameras were used to record the attractiveness as a key component of ASB efficacy, as well as differences in timing of visits to ASBs, duration between setting, species, mosquito gender and NTO behaviour around baits. Such studies provide crucial information ahead of the larger scale deployment of ATSB in various regions of Sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials \u0026 Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCamera trap customization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCamera trap customization for close-up imaging\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Bushnell dual-sensor 30 megapixels CoreDS camera (Bushnell, Cody Overland Park, U.S.A) was identified as one of the best choices for this project as this camera is equipped with seperate day and night image sensors for improved image quality under natural daylight and nocturnal illumination through LED infrared flash units. For this reason, this camera costs a bit more than average camera traps (~\u0026thinsp;150\u0026ndash;200\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e). The camera was further customized to generate close-up day and night images of the ASBs. This was done in three steps: First, different combinations of close-up filters and focal distance between the camera and the ASB were compared to identify those with the least image distortion and best field of view. Second, the best combination was used to test different camera settings for daylight sensor and images. Finally, the best camera settings for the night sensor and images were identified and further customizations made to improve night image quality. The latter required dismantling the cameras to separate the built-in Infra-Red (IR) LED flashes from the electronic circuit board and rewiring the LED IR flashes with cables and connectors so that they could be repositioned on side brackets to illuminate the baits from the sides, thereby avoiding detrimental reflections and improving contrast.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA prototype camera rig was developed and tested in a large cage in the insectaries of the Centre for Applied Entomology and Parasitology at Keele University (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This camera and close-up filter combination allowed for successful recording of time-lapse photography of ASB baits by day or night.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther optimizations were conducted to develop a sturdy plastic adapter to hold the close-up lens in position. This was done through carving a wax prototype which was used to generate a starting STL file. The design of the adapter was improved through several rounds of printing and improvements. The resulting adapter was printed in large number in black plastic resin. It holds the close-up lens tightly, incorporates waterproofing and dustproofing features and is kept in place via a plastic tie (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In addition, we developed simple guidelines for camera set-up and operations and drafted plans for the construction of animal and human proof lockable camera stations built using a folded aluminium plates design and wire mesh for deployment in the semi-field and field settings (S1, S2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAttractive sugar baits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the camera optimization performed in Keele, Sarabi ATSB stations without toxic active compounds (ASBs) Version 1.0 were of supplied by Westham Co. ASBs. They comprise of a two-dimensional (20 x 28cm) bait station with a permeable membrane on the front that encapsulates the bait mixture (attractant, sugar, with or without active ingredient) forming 16 bait pockets and sealed to a flat back layer. The permeable membrane has pores that allow mosquitoes to feed through it without puncturing it and provides protection to the bait mixture from leaking and reduces the impact of environmental hazards such as rain, dust, temperature, pressure, and others (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSemi-field experiments set-up\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSemi-field system\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-field experimental tests were carried out, inside a large screened cage at the Ifakara Health Institute\u0026rsquo;s Mosquito City facility in Kining\u0026rsquo;ina village (8.10800 \u003csup\u003e\u0026deg;\u003c/sup\u003eS, 36.66585 \u003csup\u003e\u0026deg;\u003c/sup\u003eE) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Adult mosquitoes 3\u0026ndash;6 day old and sugar starved for 6 h were obtained from a common insectary maintained at 28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2\u003csup\u003e0\u003c/sup\u003eC temperature and 75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10% humidity, light regime of 12 light/12 h dark within the vector biology laboratory, the VectorSphere, at Ifakara Health Institute.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCamera stations for recording mosquitoes and non-targeted insects landing on ATSBs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe customized Bushnell CoreDS cameras were fitted in the 1.2 x 0.7 m x 0.52 m metal frame and positioned with their objective 90 cm high, exactly opposite the centre of an ASB station (Westham, Hod-Hasharon, Israel) positioned 55-60cm away. Cameras were used with the 3D-printed adapters and close-up filters. The ASBs were mounted sideways (landscape) so as to match the orientation of the camera's field of view and completely fill it (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, S \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to featuring a holding box to hold the camera in place at the correct distance, two metal brackets were welded on each side of the camera to hold the LED IR flash. The sides of the camera stations were enclosed by a metal wire frame and the stations were locked to safeguard the camera during field use. The cameras were set to take pictures with definition of 30M (30 megapixels) at 1 min intervals day and night and were fitted with changeable 32 Gigabyte memory cards (SanDisk, California, U.S.A). With such set-up the cameras were able to record images for 3 days without maintenance, battery, or memory card changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAttractive Sugar Baits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor semi-field studies, we used the Attractive Sugar Bait (ASB) version 1.2.1 which included the odour bait but not insecticide and the same bait stations without bait and insecticide, referred to as 'ASB blank' for attraction comparison. This version has a moulded plastic back layer with 16 wells containing bait and a flat membrane that covers the back layer and holds the bait in place. This membrane has pores which enable volatiles to escape and mosquitoes to feed on the bait.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSemi-field experiments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eASB versus ASB blank comparisons\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe semi-field experiments were done in two 2m x 5m x 2m large cages within a semi-field system (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Potted plants were added to create an environment suitable for mosquitoes (hiding places and humidity). In the 1st treatment group, a camera station was placed centrally in the cage with its camera placed so as to monitor an ASB. In the 2nd treatment group and large cage, it was placed so as to monitor an ASB blank (with no odour bait). At the start of the experiment, 198 mosquitoes sugar-starved for six hours (33 females and 33 males of A\u003cem\u003enopheles arabiensis, An. funestus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e) were released into each chamber and provided access to the test bait for 72 hrs (from 18:00 h on day 1 to 18:00 h on day 4). The camera was set to record images at 1-minute intervals to record mosquitoes having landed on the baits. At the end of the 72h experiment, the images stored on memory cards from camera traps were transferred onto a computer or hard drive for further analysis. Mosquitoes were aspirated using a Prokopack aspirator (John W. Hock Company, Gainesville, U.S.A). Three replicates of these experiment were conducted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eASB versus Sucrose comparisons\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubsequently, ASB attractiveness was also compared to 20% sucrose baits (w/v) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Sucrose baits were prepared by dissolving 20g of sucrose into 100ml of distilled water. Six petri dishes (Sigma Aldridge) of an approximately 11cm diameter and 90ml volume were prepared. A disc foam was prepared from locally bought cellulose dish washing sponge (O-Cel-O, Scotch Brite) and dipped into the prepared bait solution and thereafter pressed into each petri dish. The petri dishes were overlaid with one layer of cling film and the film was pierced (10 holes) with sterile 24 mm office pins to allow the bait solution to form small droplets at each piercing point without leaking on the surface of the cling film. Six petri dishes were overlaid with cling film and arrayed in each bait resulting in a bait (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, bottom left) of comparable surface area to that of the Westham ASBs. In the 1st treatment group, a camera station was placed centrally in the cage with its camera placed so as to monitor an ASB. In the 2nd treatment group and large cage, it was placed so as to monitor a sucrose bait. All other methods were similar to those used for the ASB vs ASB blank comparisons. Two replicates of the ASB vs sucrose comparison were conducted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eField experiments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy site\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe small field trial was conducted in Lupiro village (8\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e385\u003csup\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/sup\u003eS and 36\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e670\u003csup\u003e\u0026rsquo;\u003c/sup\u003eE) in Ulanga District, south-eastern Tanzania. The village lies 270 m above sea level on the Kilombero river valley, and is 26 km south of Ifakara town, where Ifakara Health Institute (IHI) is located (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). It borders many small contiguous and perennially swampy rice fields to the northern and eastern sides. The annual rainfall is 1200-1800mm, while temperatures range between 20\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC and 34\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. Lupiro has year-round high densities of \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e constituting\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;99.9% of the \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e complex species [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e populations in that region are resistant to pyrethroid insecticides (mortality\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;20%). This area is perennially meso-endemic with malaria and with high mosquito densities throughout the year, with a peak of mosquito density observed between January and May.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePreliminary Human Landing Catch survey\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Lupiro village, starting 5 days (from May 1 through May 5, 2022) before the beginning of the field ATSB experiment, a baseline survey focusing on 32 households was conducted to identify households with high mosquito densities, using Human Landing Catches (HLCs). HLCs were performed by male volunteers sitting on a chair outdoors, approximately 5 to 10 meters from households while exposing their shins and collecting mosquitoes that landed on their legs using a mouth aspirator [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. The collection was done hourly for 11 hours from 19:00 to 06:00 in the morning with 15min breaks in each hour. The sixteen households with the highest mosquito densities (total number of mosquitoes collected per night\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20 in all cases) were included in the ATSB attractiveness experiment. All collected mosquitoes were morphologically identified to species level in the field with a dissection microscope using the Gillies and Coetzee identification key [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eASB vs ASB blank vs sucrose attractiveness experiment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sixteen houses selected had an average household size of 2 to 5 individuals and housing structures of mud or brick walls with grass-thatched roof and were randomly allocated to 3 groups for the ASB attractiveness study as follows. Seven houses were assigned camera stations monitoring ASB with attractant, 7 houses received camera stations with ASB blanks, and 2 houses received camera stations with 20% sucrose baits. All camera types were tested over the same 22 consecutive days from May 6 through May 28, 2022.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCamera stations were positioned parallel to houses and less than 1 meter away (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). As in semi-field experiments, camera traps were set 60cm away from the baits mounted in landscape orientation\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;90cm from the ground. Cameras were set-up to record day and night images in time-lapse mode at 1 min interval. Batteries and memory cards were changed every three days to ensure that images were collected for all 22 days of the experiment. The recorded images in the camera traps on an SD card, data was transferred onto the project\u0026rsquo;s computer and then stored in the hard drive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the ASB experiment, HLCs were also performed daily to measure mosquito densities in the vicinity of the houses equipped with camera stations and ASBs but at least 10m away from the houses and camera stations. Collected mosquitoes were kept in paper cups labelled with the study ID, household ID, time and date of collection, replicate number and treatment name (ASB with or without attractant). In the morning, the collected mosquitoes from the HLCs were transferred to the field insectary, killed in a \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20\u0026deg;C freezer and sorted to species level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalyses of time-lapse imaging from camera stations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo simplify viewing and analysis of the time-lapse images, stacks of images equivalent to 24h (60 x 24 images) were converted to videos using the MacOS software iMovie. This allowed fast scrolling through the images for counting and recording of the landing and departure times of mosquitoes onto and from the bait stations. Time stamps on the images helped with organizing the stacks of images and recording precise landing and departure times. From this data, the duration of the bait station visit could also directly be inferred. Videos were scanned carefully and using the zoom functions to detect mosquitoes or non-target organisms on bait stations. Mosquitoes were further characterized to species level and sexed using morphological taxonomic characters such as the shape of antennae and maxillary palps, and the shape and colour of the mosquito body and wings. Non-target organisms were examined independently by two entomologists and, except for one instance, were consistently identified to the order and family levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis was done using JMP\u0026reg; Pro 16.1.0 software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA). Differences in the number of visits to baits in relation to bait station treatment, species, and mosquito sex were tested using Chi-square test of equal proportions. General linear models (negative binomial distribution) were also used to analyze the effect of bait station treatment, camera station (nested within treatment) and day, on mosquito visits per night per trap. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were then conducted using Likelihood-ratio tests. Replicate effects were included in models and reported only when significant. Continuous data such as mean number of mosquito visits per trap per day or mean duration of visits were checked for normality and homogeneity of variance and analyzed parametrically or non-parametrically accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen conducting analyses focusing on the mean visit duration of mosquitoes on ASBs or sucrose it was observed that occasionally mosquitoes remained on sugar sources to rest long after feeding. To prevent those observations from biasing our statistical comparisons, we performed outlier analyses on the distribution of visit durations for the semi-field and field ASB versus ASB Blank experiments. Both analyses identified 12 min as the threshold duration beyond which mosquitoes were likely resting rather than sugar feeding (S 3). Thereafter longer visit durations were capped at 12 min for analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthics Approvals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e All experiments were conducted under ethical approval by the Institutional Review Board of the Ifakara Health Institute (IHI/IRB/AMM/ No: 24- 2021) and the Medical Research Coordination Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research in Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3777).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSemi-field experiments\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eASB versus ASB blank\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnder semi-field conditions, mosquitoes exhibited a significant preference for ASBs over ASB blanks i.e. without attractant bait or insecticide (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; = 24.06, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ea, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The total visits was also higher for \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e on ASBs than for \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.26, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003ea, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Female \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e frequented both bait types more than males, although it was statistically significant only for \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; = 34.18, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparisons of the mean number of visits per baits per night revealed no significant differences between ASBs and ASB Blanks in attracting mosquitoes (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.2, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.137) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eb, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). There was no significant difference between \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.25, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.6202) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eb, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). There were also no significant differences between males and females of either species of mosquito in mean number of visits per baits per night (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;1.27, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2604 (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eb, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal visits, mean visits per night and mean duration (min capped at 12 min) of mosquito visits to the ASB, or ASB Blank in the semi-field experiments broken down by treatment, mosquito species and sex.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber visits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean visits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(95%CIs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean duration (95%CIs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1 (0, 2.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5 (1.5, 5.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3 (0, 0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.7 (0, 20.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4 (0, 3.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.7 (1.6, 5.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.7 (0, 9.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.8 (3.6, 5.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1 (0, 0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0, 1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.8 (0, 9.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.7 (3.5, 5.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB Blank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1 (0, 0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0, 1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1 (0, 0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0, 1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB Blank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8 (0, 2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.1 (1.0, 11.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3 (0, 1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0, 1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1 (0, 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6 (0.9, 8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB Blank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences were observed in the mean mosquito visit durations between ASBs and ASB blanks (Mann-Whitney, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2; = 1.19, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.280) or between \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e (Mann-Whitney, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2; = 0.65, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.420). However, female mosquitoes exhibited significantly longer stays on the baits compared to male mosquitoes (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; = 6.8, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.009).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, the timing of mosquitoes landing on the ASB and ASB blank in the semi-field system mainly ranged from 06:00 h to 11:00 h and 17:00 h to 22:00 h (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). No \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e visits were recorded on baits, therefore no analyses were conducted for that species.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eASB versus Sucrose\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn semi-field experiments, no statistical difference was observed between ASBs and sucrose baits regarding the number of visits across both anopheline species (Chi-square of equal proportion - likelihood ratio: \u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.605, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e visited baits significantly more than \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.8, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.009, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003ea, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), with \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e preferring ASBs (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.025) and \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e favoring sucrose (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.8, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Females from both species visited both bait types more than males (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.6, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.010) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003ea, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe mean number of visits per bait per night did not significantly differ between ASB and sucrose or between \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003eb, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, female mosquitoes of both species visited baits more frequently than males (Mann-Whitney, \u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.15, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003eb, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal number of visits, mean visits per night and mean visit duration (capped at 12 min) of mosquito visits to the ASB or sucrose in the semi-field experiment broken down by treatment, mosquito species and sex.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber Visits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Visits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(95%CIs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Duration (95%CIs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.7 (0, 5.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.4 (3.4, 5.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8 (0, 4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6 (3.2, 5.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5 (0, 10.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.4 (3.7, 5.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7 (0, 0.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0, 5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7 (0, 0.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0, 5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0 (0.01, 4.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.4 (7.0, 11.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2 (0, 0.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.0 (12.0, 12.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2 (0.4, 4.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6 (7.4, 11.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2 (0, 7.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.8 (6.5, 11.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2 (0, 7.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.8 (6.5, 11.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, there was a significantly shorter duration of mosquito visit on ASBs than on sucrose (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.98, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). There was no significant overall difference in visit duration between \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.37, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.062) even when considering \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e females only (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.6, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.200, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMosquitoes landed on the ASB and sucrose most frequently 05:00 h to 9:00 h and 17:00 h to 22:00 h (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). There were no visits by \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e, therefore no analyses were conducted for that species.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eField experiment\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eHuman landing catches\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe HLCs performed on the same nights as the camera trap recordings showed that mosquito densities in Lupiro were high in May. \u003cem\u003eCulex quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e was the most common species landing on capturers with (223\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;81 SD) per night per person and \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e was the next most common species landing with (60.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;32 SD) per night per person.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFor \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e, HLC landings took place in all hours between 18:00 and 06:00 h but were most frequent between 19:00 and 00:00 (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). The number of landings by \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e were much higher and were particularly frequent between 19:00 h to 4:00 h in the morning after which they decreased (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eASBs vs ASB blanks vs sucrose\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn the field study, a total of 239 mosquitoes visited ASBs while only 6 mosquitoes visited the ASB blanks (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;283.28, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003ea, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e led with 182 visits, followed by 56 \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e and 7 \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e, showing significant difference in visitation rates (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;188.51, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Female mosquitoes of \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e visited baits significantly more than males (\u0026chi;2\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4.35, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.037 in all cases, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal number of visits, mean visits per bait and night and mean duration (min capped at 12 min) of mosquito visits to the ASB, ASB blank or sucrose bait stations in the field experiment broken down by treatment, mosquito species and sex.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber visits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean visits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(95%CIs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean duration (95%CIs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9 (0.6, 1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6 (4.1, 5.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2 (0.1, 0.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3 (1.3, 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1 (0.7, 1.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.2 (3.7, 4.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04 (0.01, 0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6 (0.4, 6.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04 (0.01, 0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6 (0.4, 6.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2 (0.1, 0.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.7 (3.1, 6.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1 (0.05, 0.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0 (1.4, 4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3 (0.2, 0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.1 (3.0, 5.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB blank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB blank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB blank\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01 (0, 0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.0 (0, 58.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02 (0, 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.6 (0, 6.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04 (0, 0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5 (0.3, 8.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5 (0, 1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.9 (5.1, 8.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5 (0, 1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.9 (5.1, 8.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSucrose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2 (0, 0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (7.4, 12.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04 (0, 0.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0 (0, 14.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eboth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2 (0, 0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.6 (5.6, 11.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere was a significant difference in visit duration between ASB, ASB Blanks and sucrose bait, Kruskal-Wallis: \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.26, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) with mosquitoes spending more time on sucrose than on ASBs (Dunn test: \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.02, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) but not more than on ASB blanks (Dunn test: \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.29, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.587). Moreover, there was no significant difference in visit duration between \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e (Mann-Whitney, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.731, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). No \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e visited any baits in the field study.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe mean number of visits per trap per night differed between treatment groups and followed the same overall pattern as that observed for the total number of visits, Kruskal-Wallis: \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;130.40, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e.). The overall frequency of mosquito visits per trap-night was the highest on ASBs, then decreased significantly on sucrose, and further on ASB blanks (Dunn tests: \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2.75, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.018 in both cases).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing the data from ASBs and ASB blanks for which the number of bait stations used was equal, we also fitted the number of visits by \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e into two Nested General Linear Models to account for variation between camera stations (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The models confirm the very significant impact of treatment, camera station (nested within treatment) and date, on the frequency of visits of both species (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e and Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Female \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e visited baits more frequently than males, but no significant difference between sex was observed in \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral linear models of the effect of treatment (ASB with or without attractant), mosquito sex, camera station and date on the mean number of visits per night to baits by \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Tests\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026chi;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP-value\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e197.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCamera station [Treatment]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.180 NS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCamera station [Treatment]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 ***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; df: degrees of freedom\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eNS; no significant difference\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemales and males of both species displayed similar patterns of nocturnal visits on ASBs. Camera stations recorded most landings between 5:00 to 7:00 am, and another but lesser peak of activity from 17:00h to 19:00h (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). Very few visits took place in daytime, and these were made only by \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCamera stations also recorded non-target organisms (NTOs) visiting ASBs. These were uncommon and detected on only 32 out of the total 423360 images analyzed as part of this study (0.0075%). NTOs were only found on 3 of the ASB stations and never on any of the ASB blanks or the sucrose baits. NTOs detected were ants, spiders, moths, wasps, and cockroaches. Of all the camera traps, camera number 817 was more visited by NTOs than the other camera traps (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eList of image files on which non-target organism species (NTOs) were recorded - these were identified to Order and Family.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImage file\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCamera number\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTime\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay/night\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecommon name\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e05:02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e05:03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e05:13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e05:43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080069\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e05:44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080242\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08:38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5080244\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e08:39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5120035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e773\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e03:19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLepidoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emoth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5120043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e773\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e03:27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLepidoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emoth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13:49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVespidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewasp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13:50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVespidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewasp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140452\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e01:32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140504\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19:04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140598\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e03:58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlattodea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlattidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecockroach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140704\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22:23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5150037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e04:02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5150073\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e04:38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5150074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e04:39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5150076\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e04:41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5150127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e05:32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormicidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5150828\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e00:27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSquamata\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGekkonidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehouse gecko\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5170358\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10:16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychodidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emoth fly\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5170359\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10:17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychodidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emoth fly\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5170497\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12:58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHymenoptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVespidae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewasp\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5180032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14:06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHemiptera\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAphididae\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eaphid\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5140033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14:31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5180034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e771\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14:32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5200244\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e773\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e07:22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5200271\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16:26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5230036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e07:10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5230037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e07:11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5230038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eASB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e817\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23/05/2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e07:12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInvertebrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAranaea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003espider\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study evaluated the attractiveness of the ASB Sarabi v1.2.1 developed by Westham Co. for mosquito vectors in a region of South-Central Tanzania with both malaria and dengue transmission using a camera station. This is the first study to demonstrate that such camera stations offer a simple solution for assessing and comparing the attractiveness of ASBs and other potential mosquito attractants in semi-field and field settings. In the semi-field system, comparisons between Westham ASB Sarabi v1.2.1 and sucrose solution showed that mosquitoes overall were similarly attracted to both. This is in line with a previous study conducted in Coastal Tanzania which found that locally made ASBs were equally attractive to sucrose solution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Here, however, in the semi-field system, \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e visited the ASBs more than the sucrose solution whereas \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e did not. Comparisons between ASBs and ASB blanks lacking the attractive odour blend also showed that the ASB attractant was attractive to the mosquitoes in the semi-field system. The low overall number of mosquito visits observed in relation to the number of mosquitoes released in these experiments may be attributed to the fact that they were carried out during the dry season which made for low overall mosquito activity. Fewer visits also meant lower statistical power, thus seasonality and patterns of mosquito activity play a major role in the success and need for replication in such experiments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to that the field studies were conducted during the rainy season and showed more definitively that the ASB attractant which was used in the Westham ASB stations v1.2.1 is very effective in attracting mosquitoes when compared to the ASB blank in the control arm. This confirms that the attraction of the Westham ASB station is associated with its odour bait and therefore that olfactory attraction appears more important than any visual attraction of the bait station. It is noteworthy, that despite the clear attraction of \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e to ASBs, the results obtained from the human landing catch conducted simultaneously with the camera recordings suggest a relatively low overall attractiveness of these ASB v1.2.1 stations compared to humans. HLCs indicated that mosquito densities in Lupiro village were high during the month of May, which aligns with the rainy season in the region. On average, 378 mosquitoes landed on capturers per night compared to an average of 2 landings on baits per night. Our findings suggest two hypotheses regarding the observed low visitation to the baits when compared to the HLC. Firstly, it may be possible that sugar feeding on the ASB bait stations is limited during the rainy season as there are a lot of flowers and fruits that mosquitoes can rely on for sugar at that time. In such circumstances, mosquitoes may feed mainly on natural sugar sources because of their abundance compared to the limited number of ASBs. This first hypothesis, therefore, focuses on sugar usage as a dietary complement for body maintenance and energy for flight and mating. A slightly different explanation would be that the high availability of water sources reduces the reliance on nectar, which can be sought by mosquitoes both for its water and sugar content. During the rainy period, mosquitoes might reduce their reliance on nectar or sugar solution because they find water droplets or puddles very easily and thus exhibit an overall reduced attraction to natural sugar sources and artificial baits. Thus, in future, it will be important to understand the dynamics of sugar feeding, in relation to its dual role as a source of water and or energy, and its changes in availability throughout different seasons. Interestingly, the data collected from the two stations baited with sucrose suggest that the ASB attractant performed better compared to this comparator in the field, which contrasts with the finding in the semi-field system. However, there were only two sucrose stations available for the field comparison and so further work is required to confirm that finding. Further work using larger sample sizes should also demonstrate whether ASB competes well in terms of long-range attraction with natural sources of sugar and nectar and under what conditions. Further studies should, therefore, formally test the efficacy of ASB attractant across different seasons and geographical sites to highlight the relationship between natural sugar availability and ASB efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith regard to the specificity of the ASB attractant, this study confirmed that the Westham ASB attractant was most attractive to \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e compared to \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e in the Kilombero Valley. However this has to be tested in the semi-field to see if it is related to relative survival or ASB attractiveness. \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e made longer visits to the ASB station with attractant and sucrose bait system than on ASB blank, that is a good indication that feeding activities took place.Although \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e were more frequently found on ASBs in the field, it's essential to note that this species was generally more abundant than \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e according to HLCs. Therefore, the higher presence of \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e on ASBs isn't necessarily indicative of greater attraction to these baits. Additionally, in the[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] Zambia field trial, a higher proportion of \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e were observed to have fed on ASBs compared to \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e. This finding underscores the importance of considering species-specific feeding behaviors and abundances in evaluating the efficacy and attractiveness of control measures such as ASBs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhilst the baits tested here did not include a killing agent, it remains important that mosquitoes not only explore the baits but effectively feed on them to pick up a sufficient dose of killing agent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e also fed on ASBs, but their numbers on baits were much less than expected given their great abundance in HLC catches. \u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e was never observed on the baits in the field despite being present in HLC catches, although at very low numbers. Under semi-field settings, this species was only very rarely observed on the baits. This would suggest that \u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e might require a different blend of attractants or may be even more prone to feeding on natural sugar sources than \u003cem\u003eAnopheles\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003eCulex\u003c/em\u003e. Additionally, this study highlighted other important mosquito behavioural factors, such as sex-specific differences in attraction to sugar feeding In our study, female mosquitoes visited more the ASB than male mosquitoes, which may imply that the ASB attractant or bait format is more attractive to female mosquitoes but less so for males, though semi-field sex comparisons may have been affected by relative survival rate. In contrast to our finding, a field study that used the ASB station v1.1.1 developed by Westham Co. in Zambia, observed a higher proportion of uranine positive male mosquitoes than females, implying that male mosquitoes were feeding more on the bait stations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Our finding of female attraction to ATSBs in South-Central Tanzania supports the potential use of ASBs for malaria control programmes in that region as female mosquitoes are the ones responsible for blood feeding on hosts, hence transmitting pathogens [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Interestingly, the present study documented for the first time and through direct observation the timing of landing on the baits in the field by different species. In the field, landing on the ASB started from 17:00 h and continued till 20:00 h in the evening, with a second peak of landings taking place around 5:00 h to 7:00 h in the morning. Therefore the start and end time of sugar feeding activity were comparable to those observed in host seeking female \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e from the HLC sampling performed in this study which has also in line with studies describing the natural host seeking behaviour of \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e s.l. \u003cem\u003eAn.arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e (Degefa et al., 2021; Kabbale et al., 2013). However, unlike for host-seeking, our results and those of other studies show that sugar feeding starts early in the evening and continues for 3\u0026ndash;4 h, followed by a clear drop in activity later at night and another distinct peak of activity early in the morning (Degefa et al. 2021; Kabbale et al. 2013 M\u0026uuml;ller et al. 2010)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to assess the proportion of male and female sugar feeding ahead of ATSB trials, other studies have used the cold anthrone method to detect sugar uptake in anopheline species [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Another approach used consisted in collecting the content of light-traps baited with flowers at 1h time intervals to infer the timing of feeding on natural sugar by male and female \u003cem\u003eAn. gambiae\u003c/em\u003e s.l. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. It is noteworthy that such indirect methods cannot possibly generate data on the relative proportion and timing of visits to baits by vector species as accurately as those measured from direct visual recording on ASB as implemented in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe camera stations deployed in the field also generated important data on visits by non-target organisms (NTOs) to the baits. These visits were rare and the taxa involved included Araneae (spiders), Hymenoptera (ants, wasps), and Lepidoptera (moths). Such observations are in line with findings from previous studies [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR41 CR42 CR43\" citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. The latter studies relied on identifying NTOs that fed from ATSB through detecting food dye or staining in all insects collected by Malaise traps, plate traps, UV traps, sweep nets, and pitfall traps [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR41 CR42 CR43\" citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. The varying efficacy of the trapping and marking methods used and complexity of detection in these studies make them susceptible to various biases. Camera stations are a much more direct method for recording the attraction to baits of any NTO taxa, including visits by vertebrates such as that of a gecko which our study recorded. We also found variation in local NTO abundance between ASBs with Camera number 817 recording more NTO visits than other camera traps. This may be attributed to the location of that camera trap at the fringe of the village in a wooded area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo serious issues with the camera stations were observed. The camera traps produced adequate image quality with no major difficulties in recognizing species and determining the sex of mosquitoes. No major data collection difficulties were encountered, except that identifying images positive for mosquitoes or NTOs from all generated images takes time. It is important to note that mosquitoes, being cold-blooded organisms, cannot trigger the camera's built-in passive infrared trigger when landing on the ATSB or entering the camera's field of view. Therefore, we recommend using a 24 h time-lapse approach with images taken at 1 min intervals for tracking mosquito landings in ATSB studies. The downside of that approach is that one camera trap will produce approximately 4,320 images per 72 h. To save time in viewing all those images, we converted 24 h stacks of images into mp4 video files using the Mac iMovie software. This enabled fast scrolling through the video created to quickly detect those frames with mosquitoes and recording their landing and departure times. The possibility of analyzing videos using more elaborate image analyses software assisted by machine learning is currently being evaluated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne important finding from our dry season semi-field experiments comparing ASBs to ASB blanks was that when conditions in enclosures were very dry (above 35\u0026deg;C), mosquitoes did not engage at all in our experiments and hid and died. Considering that 198 mosquitoes were released in the experimental chamber and observations were made for 72 h, we collected very few positive images of mosquitoes landing on the ASB. Thus, mosquitoes seemed to have hidden in the clay pots provided to mitigate desiccation but did not visit the ASB attractant under those conditions. Considering these observations, predicting what level of ASB visitation will be detected under field conditions during very dry weather is difficult. Whilst increased sugar feeding is expected as long as mosquitoes are active, very harsh conditions are also likely to induce further protective behaviour such as actively avoiding open and arid locations, thus enabling them to conserve moisture and survive. This might include seeking shelter, resting in cool and shaded areas, and even estivating [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to threshold levels of drought tolerance, the availability and quality of sugar sources to mosquitoes may also play a role. In the dry season, natural sugar sources such as nectar-producing plants might be scarce, further increasing the attractiveness of sugar-based attractants like those used in ASBs to mosquitoes. This is supported by a study in central Tanzania in semi-field enclosures where dense-, sparse- and no-vegetation settings were simulated during the dry and wet seasons; ATSBs were more visited under the bare site without any vegetation settings than the one with dense or sparse vegetation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. Though that study was performed in the semi-field with a controlled environment in both dry and rainy seasons, it further emphasizes the need for field studies comparing ATSB attractiveness in settings or regions with dense vegetation and rich in flowering plants and in regions with sparse or semi-arid areas to understand the full complexity of sugar feeding behaviour of mosquitoes in the field across the season.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe camera traps used in this study are well suited for this purpose because they can generate direct data for comparisons of ATSB attractiveness in different settings. In the field setting, it may be difficult to rely on detecting food dye[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] or the uranine marker (the Westham ASB used in this study had a uranine marker while the ASB blank had no marker) to estimate the percentage of mosquitoes that have fed on the ASB under investigation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. The recapture rate in the field is normally very low, due to the harsh conditions of the environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. It is, therefore, difficult to trace or capture a mosquito that visited and fed on the ASB bait station without mass ASB deployment. Additionally, the position of traps seems to be critical in assessing feeding rate if using a bait dye in the field (uranine or food dye). Studies conducted in Mali, West Africa successfully used a glue trap method to evaluate the relative attractiveness of ATSBs in the field, however the smell of glue itself can have a repellent effect [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Here again, the camera trap method can be used to assess the attraction of ATSBs without the need to deploy large numbers of ATSBs and positioning glue or other traps to indirectly evaluate ATSB attractiveness in the field. The camera stations allow a simple measure of attraction whereas trap-based feeding rate assessments, though important, may further depend on: 1) the short-range stimulus needed to feed once mosquitoes have landed, 2) the accessibility of the bait, and 3) its palatability. So the use of the camera traps in the field may arguably generate the best measure of ATSB attractiveness independent of any other factors. Further studies may be necessary to understand whether all the landings observed led to effective feeding. This could simply be established through comparing landing rates estimated by camera stations to feeding rates estimated via dye detection in semi-field studies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe use of a camera trap recording still images of mosquitoes present on ATSBs provides robust, reproducible and quantitative information on the attractiveness of different ATSBs and similar devices under different environmental conditions. Therefore, modified camera traps are powerful tools for evaluating mosquitoes interacting with a sugar bait, or other attractive product, under semi-field and field conditions. This study demonstrated that the ASB attractant used in the ASB stations v1.2.1. by Westham is attractive to \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e in semi-field and field conditions and rarely attracted NTOs. Future studies using the same camera stations would help clarify the complex relationship between seasonality, rainfall, drought, sugar source availability and their impact on absolute and relative ATSB attractiveness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eATSB\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttractive Targeted Sugar Bait\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIHI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIfakara Health Institute\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIRB\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional Review Board\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eITNs\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsecticide Treated Bed Nets, NIMR:National Institute for Medical Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eHLC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHuman Landing Catch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIRS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eindoor residual spraying.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore beginning field work, permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the Ifakara Health Institute (IHI/IRB/AMM/ No: 24- 2021) and the Medical Research Coordination Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research in Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3777).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from volunteers for participation in the study, and for publication of this report and any accompanying images.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccess and use of data supporting this article will have to comply with the Ifakara Health Institute data sharing policy. If data are requested and no competing interest is apparent, the requested data will be made available under defined conditions expressed in writing through an exchange of letters between parties stipulating those conditions and any agreed limits to use thereof.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors declare no competing interest.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFCM conducted the experiments. FT and SA customized the cameras. FCM and FT designed the study protocol, contributed to the study design, analysis, and interpretation. FCM and FT performed data analysis, interpreted the results and FCM drafted the manuscript. FT, FO, SJM and FCT provided comments upon the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to express our gratitude to Ron Knapper and Ash Leake whose insights and experience made the camera's customization possible. Our appreciation to Dawson Mziray, Shabani Hangahanga, Issa Kalulu, and Faidini Sango for their help in facilitating semi-field and field studies, Mwangungulu Stephen for the Lupiro map, and all the volunteers for their commitment to this work. Also, we sincerely give our appreciation to Seth Irish and Michel Tripet for cross-identifying the NTO to order or family level. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by IVCC through support from the Bill \u0026amp; Melinda Gates Foundation (grant: INV-007509), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) (grant: 81067480) and UK Aid (grant: 30041-105). \u0026nbsp;The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill \u0026amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, SDC or UK Aid.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOrganization WH. World malaria report 2022. World Health Organization; 2022.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Dengue and severe dengue [Internet]. World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland; 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTorto B. Innovative approaches to exploit host plant metabolites in malaria control. Pest Manag Sci. 2019;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM\u0026uuml;ller GC, Kravchenko VD, Schlein Y. Decline of Anopheles sergentii and Aedes caspius populations following presentation of attractive toxic (spinosad) sugar bait stations in an oasis. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008;24:147\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoster WA. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annu Rev Entomol. 1995;40:443\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM\u0026uuml;ller G, Schlein Y. Sugar questing mosquitoes in arid areas gather on scarce blossoms that can be used for control. Int J Parasitol. 2006;36:1077\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyasembe VO, Torto B. Volatile phytochemicals as mosquito semiochemicals. Phytochem Lett. 2014;8:196\u0026ndash;201.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyasembe VO, Tchouassi DP, Pirk CWW, Sole CL, Torto B. Host plant forensics and olfactory-based detection in Afro-tropical mosquito disease vectors. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006185.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStewart ZP, Oxborough RM, Tungu PK, Kirby MJ, Rowland MW, Irish SR. Indoor application of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) in combination with mosquito nets for control of pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e84168.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFurnival-Adams JEC, Camara S, Rowland M, Koffi AA, Ahoua Alou LP, Oumbouke WA, et al. Indoor use of attractive toxic sugar bait in combination with long-lasting insecticidal net against pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae: an experimental hut trial in Mbe, central Cote d\u0026rsquo;Ivoire. Malar J. 2020;19:1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTraore MM, Junnila A, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Revay EE, Kravchenko VD, et al. Large-scale field trial of attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for the control of malaria vector mosquitoes in Mali, West Africa. Malar J. 2020;19:1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSangbakembi-Ngounou C, Costantini C, Longo-Pendy NM, Ngoagouni C, Akone-Ella O, Rahola N, et al. Diurnal biting of malaria mosquitoes in the Central African Republic indicates residual transmission may be \u0026ldquo;out of control.\u0026rdquo; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119:e2104282119.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRussell TL, Govella NJ, Azizi S, Drakeley CJ, Kachur SP, Killeen GF. Increased proportions of outdoor feeding among residual malaria vector populations following increased use of insecticide-treated nets in rural Tanzania. Malar J. 2011;10:80.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen JM, Okumu F, Moonen B. The fight against malaria: Diminishing gains and growing challenges. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14:eabn3256.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSougoufara S, Ottih EC, Tripet F. The need for new vector control approaches targeting outdoor biting Anopheline malaria vector communities. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFraser KJ, Mwandigha L, Traore SF, Traore MM, Doumbia S, Junnila A, et al. Estimating the potential impact of Attractive Targeted Sugar Baits (ATSBs) as a new vector control tool for Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Malar J. 2021;20:1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQualls WA, M\u0026uuml;ller GC, Traore SF, Traore MM, Arheart KL, Doumbia S, et al. Indoor use of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) to effectively control malaria vectors in Mali, West Africa. Malar J. 2015;14:1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaia MF, Tenywa FC, Nelson H, Kambagha A, Ashura A, Bakari I, et al. Attractive toxic sugar baits for controlling mosquitoes: a qualitative study in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. Malar J. 2018;17:22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeier JC, M\u0026uuml;ller GC, Gu W, Arheart KL, Schlein Y. Attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) methods decimate populations of Anopheles malaria vectors in arid environments regardless of the local availability of favoured sugar-source blossoms. Malar J. 2012;11:10.1186.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM\u0026uuml;ller GC, Schlein Y. Efficacy of toxic sugar baits against adult cistern-dwelling \u003cem\u003eAnopheles claviger\u003c/em\u003e. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008;102:480\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM\u0026uuml;ller GC, Beier JC, Traore SF, Toure MB, Traore MM, Bah S, et al. Field experiments of Anopheles gambiae attraction to local fruits/seedpods and flowering plants in Mali to optimize strategies for malaria vector control in Africa using attractive toxic sugar bait methods. Malar J. 2010;9:1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTenywa FC, Kambagha A, Saddler A, Maia MF. The development of an ivermectin-based attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) to target \u003cem\u003eAnopheles arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e. Malar J. 2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParsons GJI, Lees RS, Balaska S, Vontas J. A Practical Insecticide Resistance Monitoring Bioassay for Orally Ingested Dinotefuran in Anopheles Malaria Vectors. Insects. 2022;13:311.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStell FM, Roe RM, Arellano C, Kennedy L, Thornton H, Saavedra‐Rodriguez K, et al. Proof of concept for a novel insecticide bioassay based on sugar feeding by adult Aedes aegypti (Stegomyia aegypti). Med Vet Entomol. 2013;27:284\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCollett RA, Fisher DO. Time‐lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods. Ecol Evol. 2017;7:7527\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDundas SJ, Ruthrof KX, Hardy GESJ, Fleming PA. Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles. Wildlife Research. 2019;46:104\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNg\u0026rsquo;habi KRN, Mwasheshi D, Knols BGJ, Ferguson HM. Establishment of a self-propagating population of the African malaria vector \u003cem\u003eAnopheles arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e under semi-field conditions. Malar J. 2010;9:356.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNg\u0026rsquo;habi K, Viana M, Matthiopoulos J, Lyimo I, Killeen G, Ferguson HM. Mesocosm experiments reveal the impact of mosquito control measures on malaria vector life history and population dynamics. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFerguson HM, Ng\u0026rsquo;habi KR, Walder T, Kadungula D, Moore SJ, Lyimo I, et al. Establishment of a large semi-field system for experimental study of African malaria vector ecology and control in Tanzania. Malar J. 2008;7:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaindoa EW, Matowo NS, Ngowo HS, Mkandawile G, Mmbando A, Finda M, et al. Interventions that effectively target \u003cem\u003eAnopheles funestus\u003c/em\u003e mosquitoes could significantly improve control of persistent malaria transmission in south\u0026ndash;eastern Tanzania. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0177807.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMatowo NS, Munhenga G, Tanner M, Coetzee M, Feringa WF, Ngowo HS, et al. Fine-scale spatial and temporal heterogeneities in insecticide resistance profiles of the malaria vector, Anopheles arabiensis in rural south-eastern Tanzania. Wellcome Open Res. 2017;2.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFarajollahi A, Condon GC, Campbell IV EE, McCuiston L. Glass, Rubber, and Nylon: How to Make A Mouth Aspirator On A Budget For Handling Adult Mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2011;27:444\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGillies MT, Coetzee M. A supplement to the Anophelinae of Africa South of the Sahara. Publ S Afr Inst Med Res. 1987;55:1\u0026ndash;143.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCoetzee M. Key to the females of Afrotropical Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Malar J. 2020;19:1\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChanda J, Wagman J, Chanda B, Kaniki T, Ng\u0026rsquo;andu M, Muyabe R, et al. Feeding rates of malaria vectors from a prototype attractive sugar bait station in Western Province, Zambia: results of an entomological validation study. Malar J. 2023;22:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScott TW, Takken W. Feeding strategies of anthropophilic mosquitoes result in increased risk of pathogen transmission. Trends Parasitol. 2012;28:114\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDegefa T, Githeko AK, Lee M-C, Yan G, Yewhalaw D. Patterns of human exposure to early evening and outdoor biting mosquitoes and residual malaria transmission in Ethiopia. Acta Trop. 2021;216:105837.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKabbale FG, Akol AM, Kaddu JB, Onapa AW. Biting patterns and seasonality of Anopheles gambiae sensu lato and Anopheles funestus mosquitoes in Kamuli District, Uganda. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOmondi S, Kosgei J, Agumba S, Polo B, Yalla N, Moshi V, et al. Natural sugar feeding rates of Anopheles mosquitoes collected by different methods in western Kenya. Sci Rep. 2022;12:20596.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiarra RA, Traore MM, Junnila A, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Revay EE, et al. Testing configurations of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) stations in Mali, West Africa, for improving the control of malaria parasite transmission by vector mosquitoes and minimizing their effect on non-target insects. Malar J. 2021;20:1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQualls WA, M\u0026uuml;ller GC, Revay EE, Allan SA, Arheart KL, Beier JC, et al. Evaluation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB)\u0026mdash;barrier for control of vector and nuisance mosquitoes and its effect on non-target organisms in sub-tropical environments in Florida. Acta Trop. 2014;131:104\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRevay EE, M\u0026uuml;ller GC, Qualls WA, Kline DL, Naranjo DP, Arheart KL, et al. Control of Aedes albopictus with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) and potential impact on non-target organisms in St. Augustine, Florida. Parasitol Res. 2014;113:73\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRevay EE, Schlein Y, Tsabari O, Kravchenko V, Qualls W, De-Xue R, et al. Formulation of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) with safe EPA-exempt substance significantly diminishes the Anopheles sergentii population in a desert oasis. Acta Trop. 2015;150:29\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhallaayoune K, Qualls WA, Revay EE, Allan SA, Arheart KL, Kravchenko VD, et al. Attractive toxic sugar baits: control of mosquitoes with the low-risk active ingredient dinotefuran and potential impacts on nontarget organisms in Morocco. Environ Entomol. 2013;42:1040\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMu\u0026ntilde;oz JP, Boger R, Dexter S, Low R. Mosquitoes and public health: Improving data validation of citizen science contributions using computer vision. Delivering Superior Health and Wellness Management with IoT and Analytics. Springer; 2020. p. 469\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKittichai V, Pengsakul T, Chumchuen K, Samung Y, Sriwichai P, Phatthamolrat N, et al. Deep learning approaches for challenging species and gender identification of mosquito vectors. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuestis DL, Lehmann T. Ecophysiology of Anopheles gambiae sl: persistence in the Sahel. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2014;28:648\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdamou A, Dao A, Timbine S, Kassogu\u0026eacute; Y, Yaro AS, Diallo M, et al. The contribution of aestivating mosquitoes to the persistence of Anopheles gambiae in the Sahel. Malar J. 2011;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMuyaga LL, Meza FC, Kahamba NF, Njalambaha RM, Msugupakulya BJ, Kaindoa EW, et al. Effects of vegetation densities on the performance of attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) for malaria vector control: a semi-field study. Malar J. 2023;22:1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuerra CA, Reiner RC, Perkins TA, Lindsay SW, Midega JT, Brady OJ, et al. A global assembly of adult female mosquito mark-release-recapture data to inform the control of mosquito-borne pathogens. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"ATSB, ASB, Camera trap, Malaria","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4450332/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4450332/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAttractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) are one of the new promising interventions that can complement existing vector control tools. However, there is need to provide reproducible and quantitative information on the level of attractiveness of ATSBs under field conditions. To do so, we customized camera traps for close-up imaging and integrated them into a rugged ATSB monitoring station for day and night-time recording of mosquitoes landing on the baits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe camera traps were evaluated, in a semi-field system and then in the field in rural Tanzania. In semi-field 2m x 5m x 2m net chambers, the camera trap was set up to record mosquitoes landing on either an attractive sugar bait (ASB), a blank ASB or 20% sucrose (w/v). Next, 198 mosquitoes (33 males and 33 females of \u003cem\u003eAnopheles arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAnopheles funestus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAedes aegypti\u003c/em\u003e) were released into each chamber and allowed to seek a sugar-meal for 72h, with the camera recording images of mosquitoes present on the ASB at 1min intervals. In the field 16 camera traps were set in 16 households, 7 with ASB attractant, 7 with ASB blank and 2 with 20% sucrose (w/v). Human landing catch (HLC) was performed on the same nights as the camera trap recordings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnder the semi-field conditions, there were significantly more mosquitoes that visited the ASBs than the blank baits, with \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e visiting more frequently than \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e. There were no significant differences between females and male \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis \u003c/em\u003evisits, but female \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003e visited more than their conspecific males. The duration of visits did not vary between the ASB and the blanks, nor between the mosquito species. Moreover, mosquitoes visited the ASB or sucrose equally, with \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e visiting the baits more than \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus. \u003c/em\u003eFemale mosquitoes visited the baits more than the males\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e There was no significant difference in visit duration between all species. In the field study, a mean of 70 \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e were caught per person per night by HLC compared to 1 individual recorded per night on ASBs. There were significantly more visits by mosquitoes to the ASB than the ASB blanksand sucrose solution, with more \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003evisiting the baits than \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus \u003c/em\u003eor \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus.\u003c/em\u003e Females of all species visited baits significantly more than males. Again, the duration of visits was similar between \u003cem\u003eAn. arabiensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAn. funestus\u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eC. quinquefasciatus\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eAe. aegypti\u003c/em\u003e very rarely visited ASBs in the semi-field experiments and none were observed on baits in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of camera traps to record still images of mosquitoes present on ASBs provides robust, reproducible and quantitative information on their attractiveness under different environmental conditions. Therefore, camera traps are powerful tools for evaluating and improving the ATSB technology.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits to control malaria and dengue mosquitoes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-05-31 20:28:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4450332/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a2ed9b72-1ccf-42be-8560-337ac3703400","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 31st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-07-23T19:36:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-05-31 20:28:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4450332","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4450332","identity":"rs-4450332","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}