of th~ •1orida Mosquito Control A~ lion ,

Announcing the new .. mosquito control standard

for the next 20 years. New Aqua-Reslin:"

No ~oil. No mosquitoes~ .. No comparison. 11 J:>.."'((.,_!Rl'l ~'!'(if~ t'IJ' ~,r!J; ilnd mllllan,; In

J!:Mtlc~mtm~ rom oo t:"rfrn f·,i.l!W If~ tu11t1, Xl!w Aqw-:Reslio- lb Ammm·• il~ onri only ll~llilu COI~Il'OJ Sf'ril~' "'bJdt 11 '!Olller flwr.od.. rei ~ ·eiTN:i>re uJ oodi~ool

ail.basud l'pnl}'l. And rl l!lic lllllt'll!S (Ill tilt' ~. m\•lmzn:n.eolml llru:l upplk.tU!o..tl pmlil<:m.s I'IZIXialed w:ilh all-.'~ IXltri~

ltl!lot'& I:VCJ,1JOIN.IUon Ou;r J!Oienled lfA.SJl" flll'lr:.ubrloo (l'ilr.u ~eomung t"'uoom Sr.my TJ!du:wh::o.;JJ') t.lro mmll'allr ~dnr1•s 11... major p;d.lll!ol

llS$0CIII.t..-d ·W!Ih wml"T~ ?:Jmll~ .,...IIJIO" I>~Hion 6V wu~ Lonn .;tm,n 11h:nhol

ll!DI.erui!!S '" 1ccrn n 'iiiDliW n m I1J'fflPld oodJ ."'AJI.:()·Re:>'IIO dmpl«. l'\'(llra;xrOII>JIJ 01i

!i!)t'lifll:o:utN lt'(JIJ(f\1 U1dl dr'l!li!l • lrto'OJI)' Slv!llby 1HllliJl001il [JLV ~ro'f.:!T - o-:on J!le.n J«Jrh unJ collto.a tbe i .:i.SE\.1, tu.<il lU.!'! em IAI-tn.aJ ~ ltJ faa

lilii!ld Jl'I\OV(!OI

.'\ IJ.IJJl.RI!slin'J pe~hnn ur.d plp.t!IUJllfl !J111Drldl' fLGllllllaiJnn. has bi.."'!!J rr..-.ttJ ID

D wl& ~rir11 or fil!kJ Q'loPit ioos mgwau.t Ql! f!ll>!llrr m.:>S.;JIPI" ~1.'.\. U$1ng ,.br M'l nrrpy rlf o;nrnmer+l<:~ll:r om:~II.JI:.'.r L 1\' ~l;xllllt'

{1~1111Tmen1. Th11 Kowlls; Jim'<'· (II'Q\'{'d COOI­fiiH'Jbll!' In \Ol••fnl-tw~ 111P5ilJILm ft'Citrnl s~. wjlfl tnSJ k!'lodfluw111 IJI!d kll oo bL1Ut.g lretuy, iiJlO bl<l]h ttfcr1J~'fii"'IWO

ti!Jil.m! orgoooph•l$JlbiiW resli111n1 ii:Tillrt'

A ~Vodd of AdYlmC~ IJ.)' I!IIJmOO:it l!l (Ill rram yo-11r mo,:.squi~O LDnlml pmgrum, )~u r!lmllkl~ u blit'ldi DC h.otadadnll. Su.dtfecly, px.1 b11w 1m n1l S~lli!P pro'lli..-m,; I'Qt tile polftltluJ ticmitf•

1.11!'.1 ''01.1 iiJt'l l~ em:! el'li5:bve~ and I;Cir.L'l"ll'K'riCf' of llSJD!} ll.'4l.tl'T wl.!buul LJ-o~~:

l,i!;IIZIL p•rfmmonceo ~oolly Tbe~"J c o rt'll' of lll$ml"bc dnmD!je to ~~ drul

ljDtld ~

IF.ind Oum Mgn:-nn inMl' WJbm'JDUOIL Dl1 Jww 1\qY,.._ ~lin ~w• l'lf•'VIUI.JOtJil'e )'Citlt 'fii(ISqtdli"

r:xmll'til ~rom, pi~ w k. yLillr w.ual ~rE.vo l'rfl£1!'1t'11~lith'l!' rm W I ic[unootillrl pock, or m il I .&CO-BQJ. t71)2 And wo:il rnml" tno 2 Lll crm1uy mDIKtiiib:J CIIJ]I::rol.

4f~ AgrEvo AljrEwll- Ent,ld'lll'lll"AJU:;:al H.:r.otth

95 OIHil'.UI RIII!Jit liNd tilfll1~ le, ;fj 07645

Summer 1998Volume 9, Number 2

of the Florida Mosquito Control Association

Wing BeatsPO Box 60005 15191 Homestead RdFort Myers, FL 33906 Lehigh, FL 33971

Editor-in-ChiefDennis Moore, Fort Myers, FLvoice: 941-694-2174fax: 941-694-6959e-mail: moored@mail dms state fl us

Managing EditorCharlie Morris, Vero Beach, FL561-778-7204 (voice or fax)

Associate EditorsStan Cope, Norfolk, VABetsy Field, Vero Beach, FLJohn Gamble, New Smyrna Beach, FL

GraphicsCharlie Morris, Vero Beach, FLAlan Curtis, Vero Beach, FLJames Newman, Vero Beach, FL

Column EditorsChemline - Doug Wassmer, Odessa, FLChip-Chat - Tom Floore, Panama City, FLCrankcase Eddie - Ed Meehan, Mound, MN

Regional EditorsMassachusetts - Timothy D Deschamps, NorwoodMichigan - Thomas R Wilmot, SanfordNew Jersey - William C Reinert, NorthfieldTexas - Dan Sprenger, Corpus ChristiUtah - Glenn Collett, Salt Lake City

Editorial Review BoardRichard Berry, Columbus, OHDavid Dame, Gainesville, FLGerry Hutney, Tampa, FLL Philip Lounibos, Vero Beach, FLRobert Lowrie, Covington, LAJoseph Ruff, Panama City, FLJohn J Smith, Norwood, MAJames Webb, Santa Ana, CA

Florida Mosquito Control AssociationFMCA President: David Dame, Gainesville, FLe-mail: dadame@nervm nerdc ufl edu

Shelly Redovan, Executive DirectorPO Box 60837Fort Myers, FL 33906-0837voice: 941-694-2174; fax: 941-433-5684e-mail: redova@mail dms state fl us

American Mosquito Control AssociationAMCA President: Dan Ariaz, Reno, NVe-mail: dariaz@aol com

Pamela Toups, AMCA Business Manager2200 E Prien Lake TdLake Charles, LA 70601voice: 318-474-2723; fax: 318-478-9434e-mail: amcaintl@deltech net

Wing Beats: Published quarterly by the Florida Mosquito Control Association This magazine is intended to keep allinterested parties informed on matters as they relate to mosquito control, particularly in the United States All rights reservedReproduction, in whole or part, for educational purposes is permitted, without permission, with proper citation The FMCAand the AMCA have not tested any of the products advertised or referred to in this publication, nor has it verified any of thestatements made in any of the advertisements or articles The FMCA and the AMCA do not warrant, expressly or implied, thefitness of any product advertised or the suitability of any advice or statements contained herein Opinions expressed in thispublication are not necessarily the opinions or policies of the FMCA or the AMCA

Subscriptions: Wing Beats is sent free of charge to anyone within the continental United States Subscriptions areavailable for the cost of first class postage to any foreign address at the following rates: Europe, UK and Australia US$20;Canada, US$6; South America US$10 Make checks and purchase orders payable to the Florida Mosquito ControlAssociation and send to FMCA, PO Box 60837, Fort Myers, FL 33906-0837

Correspondence: Address all correspondence regarding Wing Beats to the Editor-in-Chief, Dennis Moore, PO Box60005, Fort Myers, FL, 33906 Readers are invited to submit articles related to mosquito and biting fly biology and control,or letters to the Editors, to the Editor-in-Chief There is no charge if your article or letter is printed Photographers and artistsare invited to submit color transparencies, or high quality original artwork or artwork in electronic format (CGM) for possibleuse in the magazine or on the cover; $100 will be paid for each cover photo Businesses are invited to place advertisementsthrough the Editor-in-Chief

About the Cover: Hand painted Aboriginal art painted and crafted by Arthur Conlon; commissioned by Charlie Morris whilein Australia Mr Conlon’s inspiration comes from his experience as a decendant of the Wakka Wakka tribe and the fauna ofthe Kabi-Kabi region in Queensland, Australia

Vector Bearings: Beautiful One Day, Dengue the Next.......................4

by Scott Ritchie

Inside Out: Managing Mozzies for a Monster Meet.............................6

by Richard C. Russell

Under Surveillance: Chasing Arboviruses During a Military Exercise...10

by Stanton E. Cope, Richard C. Russell & A. Jeffrey Yund

Faces: The Queen of Oz............................................................................12

by Charlie Morris

Chemline: Setting the Record Straight on the Non-existentLink Between Methoprene and Frog Deformities................................14

by George Lindahl

Program Profile: Mosquito Control in the Sunshine State(s)...........16by John C. Gamble, Darren Alsemgeest, Roy Durre & Peter O�Bryan

On the Books: It’s All Greek to Me...................................................18by Mike Muller

Leading Edge: The Oz - Florida Exchange Program......................22by Peter O�Bryan, Roy Durre & John Gamble

Program Profile: Vector Control Through Urban Planning..............31by Andreas Muhar and Pat Dale

r

Beautiful One day. Dengue the Next

When I arrived in Australia in 1992, the Queensland Tourist Bu­reau had a popular television ad aimed at southern snowbirds. Tropical beaches, bikinis, and re­freshing beers were followed by "Queensland, beautifu l one day, perfect the next." However, being a medical entomologist, I knew that the sound bites were, in part, a cover for the mosquito bites. And, being that north Queensland is truly tropical (no frosts), the mozzie bites were often loaded with pathogens; Ross River virus, dengue, even Japanese encephalitis were a tropi­cal risk. And as a medical ento­mologist with Queensland Health's Tropical Public Health Unit (TPHU), it is my job to do something about it.

Dengue is an arboviral disease that occasionally, and ever more frequently, causes outbreaks in ur­ban areas of trop ical north Queensland. Anywhere there are Aedes aegypti, there is a threat of dengue transmission. Recently, an unwitting tourist, perhaps feeling washed out from the after effects of street market cuisine, has in fact contracted a dose of dengue. He visits Cairns, crashes in a cheap backpacker's hostel, and subse­quently feeds the local aegypti population. The mozzies digest the meal, and some live long enough to transmit dengue virus to others.

What's So Scary About Dengue?

Dengue typ ically causes a nasty, flue-like illness complete with headache, fever, nausea and rash: these leave you washed out and

4 Summer 1998

bedridden . However, some indi­viduals get dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), which can result in severe internal bleeding and, in about 5% of cases, death. This has usually been associated with se­quential (within 1-5 years) infection with different types of dengue of which there are 4 types; DEN-1, 2, 3 and 4.

The vector, Ae. aegypti, is per­fect. As an adult, it lives indoors. And, because it is adapted to feed almost exclusively on man , it dodges the swat like Ali avoided hooks. This results in lots of inter­rupted feeds; a sip of blood here, a sip of blood there. And a dose of dengue to all in between. In urban areas, dengue spreads quickly, with severa l family members struck down by a single mosquito.

For Australia, the scary sce­nario has been that an epidemic of dengue would prime an area for an outbreak of DHF when another type of dengue broke out. Currently, there are epidemics of multiple se­rotypes of dengue throughout much of SE Asia, with thousands of DHF cases. There seems to be more every year.

The same thing could happen almost anywhere in the world where there are Ae. aegypti. Certa inly Florida would get its share of im­ported dengue from Caribbean travel packages. But Florida has the American dream; a 4-bedroom, 2.5-bathroom split-level with pool and, most importantly, fu lly screened with central air. Austra­lians, being Australians, aren't as bothered by tropical weather, re­sponding to a heat wave with a

carton of beer and a "She'll be right, mate." Thus, in Cairns, many of the houses are well ventilated, high-set Queenslanders that are up on poles, with lots of windows - life is a breeze. It is certainly a dream house for Ae. aegypti, the cock­roach of mosquitoes; open win­dows for easy access, dark, clut­tered areas under the house in which to hide, and plenty of hu­man bait during siesta time.

The Beginning

In early December 1997, the TPHU in Cairns (pop. 120,000)was notified of several potential dengue cases in the north esplanade area of the city. The premise was a guesthouse frequented by young backpackers and travelers. To con­trol mosquitoes in the surrounding neighborhood, source reduction was conducted within 200 m of the hostel, and the adjacent houses were sprayed with a residual pyre­throid insecticide. Specifically, po­tential resting sites of adult Ae. aegypti in and under houses were sprayed initially with a surface spray (tetramethrin + permethrin aerosol) and later with a 0.04% AI solution of lambdacyhalothrin using a pressurized, hand-pump sprayer. Genetic analysis of several DEN-3 virus isolations by Debbie Phillips of Queensland Health suggests that the most likely source of the virus (DEN-3) was Thailand.

Health authorities spent much of the Christmas holidays chasing dengue pat ients who had con­tracted the disease in the north esplanade area. Particularly worri-

Wing Beats 5Summer 1998

some was the instance where awoman who had contracted den-gue at the hostel. Despite living inan air conditioned, screened apart-ment, she chose to sleep outdoorson her veranda. This was not agood choice, as her neighbour hadtwo potted plant bases full ofaegypti larvae.

By January 1998, few cases ofdengue were reported from the es-planade area of Cairns. Nonethe-

The Second Blow

In mid-January, a report of threesuspected dengue cases was re-ceived in Whitfield, a suburb inwestern Cairns, far away from theactivity of the esplanade. PCR test-ing revealed that the virus was notDEN-3 but DEN-2. Now we had twovirus outbreaks on our hands. Thearea was relatively devoid of mos-quitoes and many of the homeswere screened. Fortunately, only afew more DEN-2 cases would oc-cur in Whitfield.

By late January, no denguecases were reported for a week.Personnel had a welcome breakfrom chafing, prickly heat and dogbites. But then an unusual spell ofhot (37°C) “dengue weather” set in.

On February 2, the TPHU wasnotified of a dengue case inParramatta Park. The next day,three more notifications arrivedfrom the same area, followed byseveral more over the weekend.What was going on? ParramattaPark is an older suburb, with oldQueenslander cottages on smallblocks; houses are literally cheekto jowl. Many are rentals, some withrubbish-filled back yards and mostare unscreened. Perhaps mostworrisome is that this new denguehotspot was not far from where ourdengue patient decided to sleepwith the aegypti. There were 37probable cases from there in thenext two weeks. I visited premisesin the area and found dengue pa-tients prone in bed, with female Ae.aegypti flying around the room.Yards were searched, roomssprayed, and cases uncovered. Insome blocks, every house hadcases, with multiple members ofsome families infected.

Why the sudden resurgence?Obviously, there was “silent” trans-mission in January. Infected peoplehad subclinical dengue or, at least,insufficient symptoms to visit a doc-tor. We talked with several peoplewho were slightly ill but did not visita doctor. They were, at our request,

tested and most were dengue-posi-tive. Dengue may have been mis-diagnosed in some instances. Fi-nally, notifications were late in ar-riving. These factors, coupled witha hot week in January in a suburbwith unscreened houses, resultedin an explosive outbreak. As of 23January, there were 78 confirmedand 30 probable dengue cases.

May, 1998

It is now May 18th, and CharlieMorris and Stan Cope have co-erced me into writing an account ofthe 1998 Oz dengue outbreak -without pay! Most of the previoustext was written in late Februaryand published in the Society forVector Ecology March newsletter.The dengue outbreak is now intoits 6th month. My initial enthusiasmin tackling the disease has wornthin, distracted by an outbreak ofJapanese encephalitis (the first onthe Australian mainland) that re-quires my urgent attention. This isa nice diversion for me while thelocal mosquito control personnelmop up the dengue. Despite ourefforts, it still goes on. Dengue justwon’t go away, 150 cases by Aprilwith no deaths. A concurrent out-break in Fiji caused 25,000 cases.

This DEN-3 virus is certainly themost slippery I have known. Theconcurrent outbreak of DEN-2 waskilled off within 2 months, with only12 cases. Most previous dengueimportations and outbreaks inCairns ended with no local trans-mission or, at most, 1-2 cycles oftransmission. But this DEN-3 getsaround. Since the outbreak startedin December, local transmission ofdengue has occurred in at least 11discrete clusters. No place is im-mune. Several cases of denguewere transmitted on a coral cay inthe Great Barrier Reef. The aegyptiwere happily breeding in boatsparked under a mango tree. As thissituation illustrates, the virus quicklyjumps great distances, probably viaman. Stop by with some chicken

continued on page 29

w DEN-3 relatively virulent, withca. 30% hospitalized, primarily fordehydration.

w Highest transmission followingunusually hot weather.

w Hidden breeding containers (un-der houses) were missed by yard in-spection and probably led to furthertransmission.

w Interior fogging with residual in-secticide, coupled with source reduc-tion, led to a significant decline inAe. aegypti populations (meanovitrap count was 2.2 and 12.5 Ae.aegypti eggs for the treatment andcontrol areas, respectively).

w Over 90% of homeowners com-plied with request to spray roomswith insecticide.

w “Silent transmission” led to sec-ondary outbreaks in a high-risk area.

Highlights of the 1997-98Queensland Dengue Outbreak

less, sporadic cases were noted inan apartment block west of the hos-tel where the outbreak started, andadult Ae. aegypti were collected ata nearby hospital. While investigat-ing mosquito complaints in anearby office building, I found atwo-wheeled trailer under a housethat was breeding large numbersof Ae. aegypti. Because the trailerwas located under a high-setQueenslander, it was missed bypersonnel surveying yards for mos-quito breeding sites. The trailer andunder house were then fogged anddengue cases and mosquito re-ports in the area ceased.

Managing Mozzies for a Monster Meet The Olympic Games

The site for the year 2000 Olym­pic Games (and Paralympic Games) in Sydney, Australia, is at Homebush Bay, about 12 km west of the central business district and near to the geographic and demo­graphic centre of Greater Sydney. The development of the site has raised a number of issues for mos­quito control.

This is an ex-industrial area ad­jacent to the major tidal river of the estuary around which the city of Sydney is constructed. Until re­cently it conta ined a slaughter­house, brickworks, naval arma­ments depot, and mangrove "swamps" that for many decades had been progressively reclaimed. The area was targeted for renewal in the mid-1980s, and redevelop­ment was originally planned for a period of 20 years towards 2010. However, the decision to use the area for the Olympic Games has meant that the development has proceeded apace towards comple­tion in the year 2000. More than 700 hectares are involved in the development area; international sporting facilities will share the site with commercial, recreational and residential developments, and a strong su ite of environmental guidelines has been formulated for the various developments.

The Development

The area where the facil ities for the Games, and other recreational and educational activities, are be­ing constructed is adjacent to sa­line wetlands fringing Homebush Bay and the Parramatta River. There are also freshwater marsh-

6 Summer 1998

lands associated with Haslams Creek and Powells Creek which enter the river through the bay.

The wetlands typically produce large numbers of pest mosquitoes, some of which are important arbo­virus vectors. Although there is no known activity of mosquito-borne pathogens at the site, authorities are sensitive to the nuisance prob­lem and disease threat. There is a dual concern that the mosquitoes produced in the area may nega­tively impact on visitors to the site, and that the development projects themselves may actually increase the mosquito problems for visitors, nearby workers and residents.

Because Homebush Bay has reta ined remnants of original Sydney ecosystems, with their flora and fauna, development of the area has included the rehabilitation of large areas of degraded land and integration of them with the natural and built environments.

Importantly, there is a remediation of existing wetlands. The saline wetlands are being pre­served, rehabil itated and en­hanced, primarily because of a number of considerations that are mentioned below, and a large fresh­water reed marsh which had to be removed for a floodway reconstruc­tion and creek realignment, is be­ing replaced in an adjacent posi­tion by a similar wetland.

Freshwater wetlands of various types are being constructed for control and treatment of stormwater and wastewater, storage of irriga­tion water and to provide habitat for a rare and endangered species of frog. There also will be landscape

by ~~ e. ~«44dt water features that will include re­tention pools for fountains and cas­cades.

The Considerations

The development of the area, and the options for mosquito man­agement, are being influenced by a number of significant consider­ations:

The terrestrial and wetland eco­systems are significant remnants of the original floral habitat of the area. There is a eucalyptus forest rem­nant that has been retained since 1855, and wetlands that are direct lineal descendants of the original wetlands of the area. There is a mo­saic of wetland habitats that sup­port Sydney's most significant populations of waterbirds, and there are locally, rare, woodland communities that support a num­ber of regionally rare species of woodland and grassland birds.

The wetlands, and surrounding grasslands and woodlands, provide habitat for a number of local and migratory birds. The latter include species that travel from as far away as Alaska, Siberia and Scandinavia, and some of the spe­cies are covered by international agreements with Japan and China. Of particular concern are Lathams Snipe ( Gallinago hardwickil) and the Pacific Golden Plover (P/uvialis fulva). It is important therefore for the wetlands to be not only pre­served but rehabilitated and en­hanced, so as to provide a continu­ing favourable habitat for these mi­gratory and other birds.

continued on page 8

From c l ea n w ater ,,, hl11hl ~ ''r,t~ ... "it. \\llh"'1,

\.'!!;'~ 111 flJL r.d 'IA."l.·Nl..tn lfl \ co ;un lhf' h 1 \lo, \ "' ,,lflfr-dl

II ho t.nl ~f't"· 11um Ill llli1.'14,Wtl., 1:~~"~

Supc~ rinr !Vlosquiro 'Control For E~.tch

E ."\ t r e m e t\ 11 d E v e r y t h i n g I n B c r w e e n .

uil •n rc. &.'1:1 liCrn rn ill1diAII I ( "' l!H6i:'

For t o u 1 b • r a tl ·t u at I on s wd 11.!!>11:1~ ~lJ'Itmlrol (JJII.qUit Ill, IlL! II 141 \<X'I11E ¢X [L!> .:ll..tfH'

ln~n"dicnL IJ.JL·~JIIt • .'•J•IIIlr rJf It\, h11"i lfu! lllliq&ll!' prui1L't1 ~ uj IJc.Jqg able tl11.'4 •11fhll II II tl;t~U lt•l l!llV~ for up N •I to,<O:Ck!-o.l!~o.!ll iJI lnrlll~ llfllo.CIIIto; -tmcruritlll!t'IJ...._

Na l1ll1ILL!J \1111,;111' Hllllt flo '11-..ur\', !lJitl UJ \a:li•Bm.:: u:J \' .. "C(oii_.:Ao folt ip.!f't>lor I] l.i.t ftiH .:;o1fi!JIJ1. .BiJ!l1 rmofs.u;(~

Lire !t!JPJIUH&!l} h) ~ •· ta '-= ' rry -..ulDmlff&.:llltl Olr.loY:pUJ.ll 0 II11Jt

8 Summer 1998 Wing Beats

The health of the stands ofmangroves (Avicennia marina) andareas of saltmarsh (principallySarcocornia quinqueflora) hasbeen of concern for some years be-cause of the substantial degrada-tion that has occurred in these habi-tats. There are three saltmarshplant species which are considereduncommon in the state of NewSouth Wales and have been tar-geted for conservation.

The Green and Golden Bell frog(Litoria aurea) is considered a rareand endangered species in NewSouth Wales, and it has been dis-covered in various parts of the de-velopment area. There are effortsto preserve its current habitats inthe area, and when such sites haveto be destroyed, the frogs are col-lected and removed to a nearbysuitable habitat. Additionally, extrahabitats are being constructed inthe area for the frog, as are strate-gically-placed, protected corridorsthat will promote its dispersal andconservation.

Apart from passive recreationassociated with the parkland beingconstructed within the developmentarea, the wetlands are destined tohave an educative role for schooland other community groups.Boardwalks and bird hides, andvarious instructional features, willbring people into close and infor-mative contact with the variouswetland habitats.

Overall, 27 species from 8 gen-era have been recorded from thearea in surveys during 1989 andannually from 1993-1998. The gen-

era involved are Aedeomyia (1 spe-cies), Aedes (12 species), Anoph-eles (2 species), Coquillettidia (1species), Culex (8 species), Man-sonia (1 species), Mimomyia (1species), Uranotaenia (1 species).The adult monitoring program in thepast 3 years has involved weeklysampling with up to 30 dry-icebaited light traps throughout the de-velopment area. Larval samplinghas comprised weekly sampling at27 saline points and 60 freshwaterpoints throughout the area.

Four species of saline watermosquitoes exploit habitat in themangroves (impounded pools) andon thesaltmarshes( d e p r e s -sions filledby monthlyhigh tidesor rainfall),and cancreate anuisancepest prob-lem. Twoof theses p e c i e s ,Aedes (Ochlerotatus) vigilax andCulex (Culex) sitiens, can becomevery abundant, although the othertwo, Ae. (Mucidus) alternans andAe. (Ochlerotatus) campto-rhynchus are generally less notice-able. Ae. vigilax has returned amonthly average of approximately200 females per trap in mid-sum-mer (February) over the past fewyears, although individual trapshave collected up to 15,000 fe-males per night during the secondweek following tidal inundation ofthe marshes.

The freshwater wetlands havebeen responsible for production ofsubstantial numbers of Cx. (Culex)annulirostris, Cx. (Culex)australicus and Coquillettidia(Coquillettidia) linealis, and it islikely that the newly constructedwetlands will be able to supportsimilarly large populations of thesespecies if the habitats are not de-

signed and managed appropriately.Cx. annulirostris has returned amonthly average of approximately50 females per trap in Februaryover the past few years, althoughindividual traps have collected upto 850 females per night.

The constructed wetlands havesupported various species depend-ing on the state of their develop-ment. In the initial stages when thebanks are bare of vegetation, Ae.(Finlaya) alboannulatus is the domi-nant species. Later, as emergentvegetation becomes denser, Cx.annulirostris predominates, andAnopheles (Cellia) annulipes can

b e c o m erelativelyabundantif floatingvegetationp r o l i f e r -ates.

Anumber ofthe mos-quito spe-c i e spresent inthe area

are important vectors of diseasepathogens, especially arbovirusessuch as the flaviviruses Murray Val-ley encephalitis (MVE) virus andKunjin (KUN) virus both of whichcause encephalitis, and thealphaviruses Ross River (RR) virusand Barmah Forest (BF) viruswhich each cause polyarthritis.Aedes vigilax and Cx. annulirostrisare the species of greatest concern,with both being major vectors of RRand BF viruses, and the latter be-ing the most important vector ofMVE and KUN viruses.

Although no mosquitoes in-fected with arboviruses have beencollected in the Homebush Bayarea, and there are no known hu-man arboviral infections from theimmediate or surrounding subur-ban areas, BF virus has been iso-lated from Ae. vigilax and Stratfordvirus (a flavivirus) from Ae. vigilaxand Ae. (Finlaya) notoscriptus in

Mozzies , continued from page 6.

continued on page 27

PURE AND SIMPLE rumr' FYFANON LILY Jin:~.:dy frnrn our drum m yn11r filnk. k goes 1n Ui tc.lilmcJ dimm:m:s the flotem i~l lm wo,d_v- mild n~ crr<~<r.~ m~l 1(\~llu:' ~'111 plu~rce ..:hem ic.1 l c::•:flO:<.\Jrt! ~n the new ra:rmu.tltlt, 14-llllahlt' c:vntainrr, fYFANON .J.w dimm.m:c;, 11 iplc fll t,lllt; .md wut.Uncr Ji~po~J- W'hm .:auld lx- c1sirr.

•litod ,n·\ r1'FANON ULV is bcrtcr rh tn ~'\~r- 4J(.,._«J~ 1'n

purt• :md 1~.::.!. acureh- wxic 'hilll r(!.,merl:u1n. p~:rm~.fhrHI, fc nd!iur~ (If nulru,

I?YrA ~n ~ r....•w.-~ htU rmh., mon~r .uul t.ilior. Do rhc. m::uh n tcl ~uu'll :o.n fJYbANON .:mer.\ mc-.r~ ;lcrC$ fin r ... w~r dt>ll.t r, tha.u ail\

L,.,mpcnnr; producr.

(j CHEMINOVA Chaminova, Inc. • 1700 Routo 23 • Surce 210 • Wayne, New Jer.se:~ 07470 • 800·549·6113

r

Chasing Arboviruses During a Military Exercise

by s~ &. ~. 7i!~ e. 7i!H44efi & /1. ~ ~

The largest United States Pa­cif ic Command exercise in 15 years, Tandem Thrust 97 (TT97), took place in March in the rugged Shoalwater Bay Train ing Area (SWBTA) in Queensland, Australia. Approximately 28,000 troops par­ticipated in this Australia-U.S. com­bined amphibious assault and live­fire exercise.

SWBTA, adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, consists of over 1,000 square miles of salt marshes, mangrove swamps, tidal creeks, fo rests, meadows and mountains. The health threats as­sociated with this diverse area were numerous and substantial. Mos­quito-transmitted viruses, especially

Fig. 1. Shoalwater Bay Training Area

the alphaviruses Ross River virus (RR) and Barmah Forest virus (BF), were a major concern as they are endemic in the training area, and TT97 was held at the peak of the transmission season.

Infection with RR and BF in humans can result in a debilitating and prolonged polyarthritis, often preceded by fever and rash. RR is thought to be associated with na­tive marsupials (e.g. kangaroos) in its natural cycles. Although similar animals have also been shown to be infected by BF, the reservoirs of

10 Summer 1998

Fig. 2. Aedes vigi/ax, the primary vector of Ross River virus in coastal regions.

this virus are unknown. From 1991-1997, more than 35,000 laboratory­confirmed cases of RR were noti­fied to the federal health authori­ties, with the majority of these be­ing infected in Queensland. The ma­jority of cases of BF have also oc­curred in Queensland although national notifications are fewer, av­eraging approximately 750 cases per year for the past three years.

The two viruses share common vectors where they occur through­out much of Australia. In coastal re­gions, the saltmarsh species Aedes vigilax (Fig. 2) in northern regions and Aedes camptorhynchus in the south are the most important. In in­land regions Culex annulirostris (Fig. 3) is the principal vector, al­though other species including vari­ous floodwater Aedes species may be involved in survival, initiation and amplification cycles.

In support of TT97, the United States Navy sent the Deployed Public Health Laboratory (DPHL) into the field. The mission was dis­ease and vector surveillance, and operational preventive medicine. PREVENTION was emphasized and highlighted heavily throughout the planning for this important ex­ercise.

All participating troops received detailed written guidance on dis­ease prevention as well as thor­ough preventive medicine briefs. Another important aspect of pre­deployment preparation was a large serosurvey of U.S. forces with over 1 ,300 blood samples and questionnaires obtained from se­lected Army, Marine Corps and Navy units. Our hope was that comparison of post-deployment samples would yie ld valuab le knowledge concerning exposure to infectious agents (including the ar­boviruses) and utilization of per­sonal protection measures (insect repellent, bednets, etc.).

The DPHL was composed pri­marily of personnel from the field offices of the Navy Environmental Health Center, Norfolk, VA. Seven were from the Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 6, Pearl Harbor, HI, and 1 each from the Navy Disease Vector Ecology and Control Centers (Bangor, WA and Jacksonville, FL). The 1 01h per­son was from the Naval Medical Clinic, Pearl Harbor. During TT97, the DPHL was located on the com­pound of the field hospital at Camp Sam Hill in a tent next to the labo­ratory. The lab was organized into

Fig. 3. Culex annulirostris, the primary vector of

Ross River virus in inland ions.

four sections including epidemiol­ogy, entomology, environmental health, and microbiology.

Fig . 4. Lieutenant Coolmander Stan Cqle and hoopital Corpsman First Class Vemoo Stiles (behind

Jll!Pare fcr a niglt's catdl ci mozzies.

The entomology section fo­cused on collection of live mosqui­toes (known in Austral ia as "mozzies") for virus isolation at­tempts. Over 45,000 adult female mozzies were collected from 15 sites during 19 nights of trapping. These were frozen on dry ice in the field and then shipped overnight to the medical entomology laboratory of the University of Sydney and the Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research at Westmead Hospital in Sydney.

Over 40 species in 8 genera were identified and placed into 2,289 pools for virus isolation at­tempts. Each pool contained up to 25 mozzies sorted according to species, sex, unfed or bloodfed, and site and date of collection. The pools were ground and inoculated into mosquito and vertebrate cell cultures for isolation of arboviruses. Isolates were tested by ELISAs us­ing group- and virus-specific mono­clonal antibodies which screen for

and identify local alpha- and flaviviruses.

Aedes vigilax (65.6%) and Culex annulirostris (17.4%) made up 83% of mosquitoes collected. The next three most common spe­cies were Ae. gahnico/a (6.1 % ), A e. procax (4.6%) and Ae. funereus (2.6%). These five species ac­counted for 96.3% of the total col­lected. Isolates of RR were ob­tained from 2 pools of Cx. annulirostris and from 1 pool each of Ae. vigilax, Ae. procax and Ae. funereus. It is interesting to note that 2 of the isolates were from Camp Sam Hill where over 1 ,000 troops lived for over a month. The isolates from Cx. annu/irostris and Ae. vigilaxwere not unexpected, as they are the principal vectors as mentioned above. The isolations from Ae. procax and Ae. funereus were also not new records but they were important findings as data have been accumulating to indicate that these two species should be accorded greater concern as likely vectors.

Fig. 5. Dr. Cope processes the day's catch in front of the Deployed Public Health Laboratory.

The DPHL confirmed RR illness in 6 individuals during the exercise by finding lgM antibody in persons with typical illness. Live virus was isolated from 2 of these cases. Three individuals developed RR ill­ness soon after returning home and one developed BF illness. Of the nine people who developed illness, two were still having significant symptoms a year after the exercise. Finally, our serosurvey showed that about 1.6% of the troops were in­fected with RR but did not develop clinical illness.

The arbovirus threat to de­ployed forces during TT97 was clearly documented by the DPHL. The importance of preventive medi­cine, public health and medical en­tomology in the field environment was obvious, and deployed labo­ratories such as the DPHL are likely to be incorporated into major military exercises more often in the future.

The opinions and assertions contained in this document are those of the writers and are not to be construed as official or reflect­ing the views of the United States Navy or the Department of Defense.

Acknowledgements:

The authors thank Stephen Doggett, John Clancy and John Haniotis for their diligence in iden­tifying, sorting and testing the mos­quitoes. The photos of Aedes vigilax and Culex annulirostris are by Stephen Doggett, Department of Medical Entomology, University of Sydney and Westmead Hospi­tal. All other photos Brian R. Wolff/ IIPI.© All Rights Reserved . ~

r Stan Cope is a Lieutenant Commander in the Medical Service Corps of the United States Navy. He is currently located at the Navy Environ­mental Health Center, Norfolk, Virginia 23513-2617. E-mail: copes@nehc.med.navy.mil

Richard Russell is an Asso­ciate Professor with the Univer­sity of Sydney and Director of the Department of Medical Ento­mology at Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia RichardR@cidm.wh.usyd.edu.au

Jeffrey Yund is a Com­mander in the Medical Corps of the United States Navy. He is currently located at the Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No.6, Bldg. 1535 North Road, Pearl Harbor, Ha­waii 96860-5040. E-mail: ~und@nepmu6.med.navy.mil

Summer 1998 11

As we sit on a veranda in near­downtown Brisbane Australia, the rainbow lourikeets, butcher birds, magpies and kookaburras take turns heralding the splendor of the new day with distinctive loud voices. Add coffee, sweets and the fragrances of an Australian garden and you can appreciate this ideal location to interview a friend and colleague, at her home.

Do you remember those biog­raphies of early Americans such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin? They often began by de­scribing them as an outstanding leader of their time, giving them titles like Statesman, Doctor, Law­yer, Social Scientist, Teacher, Fa­ther, Geographer, Author, Musician, Craftsman, and World Traveler. Well , replace the Father with Mother and add Ecologist and you have a modern day leader in Aus­tra lian mosquito control, Patricia Ellen Rosemary Dale, B.A., M.S., Ph.D., L.LD. Even though Austra­lia is still part of the Commonwealth and we might call her Queen of Australian Mosquito Control, she prefers we call her Pat and so we shall, mate.

Describing Pat Dale and her work is somewhat like describing a fruit salad by taste alone. You quickly recognize some of the fla­vors but you have to open your eyes and look close to see all the goodies that make the combination something speciaL

Let us begin with the present Dr. Dale, oh yes, Pat, is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Environmental Sci­ences at Griffith University in Brisbane. She currently lectures in

12 Summer 1998

The Queen of Oz

Planning, Law, Geographic Infor­mation Systems, and Remote Sensing. Did I forget some of those titles earlier? See what I mean about the fruit salad. And what does this have to do with mosquito con­trol? Griffith students sometimes work on projects that bring together different views on issues which have an environmental element

Pat believes true IPM means in­tegrating not just the mosquito com­ponents but all interest groups and issues that impact mosquito pro­duction and controL Mosquito con­trol and society in general would certainly benefit if we all adopt this expanded vision of IPM for mos­quito control

As you will read, Pat is espe­cially qualified to guide students in these integrated activities and to lead the new Advanced Environ­mental Law curriculum inaugurated at Griffith Uni. in 1998.

Perhaps the name Pat Dale is familiar to some of you. No doubt many of you know or have met Pat She has been to the US on mos­quito contro l related business seven times since 1990. She at­tended AMCA meetings in Louis-

ville, Fort Myers, San Diego and Norfolk, a SOVE meeting in Or­lando, several state meetings, and worked with NASA personel and LSU's Hugh Jones on remote sens­ing projects. Pat has visited and has worked with mosquito control­lers in California (Fred Roberts, Soiling and Vince Resh}, Massa­chusetts (Walt Montgomery), New Jersey (Fred Ferrigno) and Florida (Doug Carlson and Jorge Rey) among others.

Others may remember her as the Runnelling expert. Runnelling is the down under version of rotary ditching. However, cal ling it runnelling proved a stroke of genius on Pat's part. It allowed environ­mental agencies in Australia to ac­cept the concept of habitat man­agement in a salt marsh without the negative impression they have of ditching or draining. Runnelling, like rotary ditching, is neither a ditch or a drain. Runnels allow free flow of water between tidal creeks and for­merly cut off depressions which produced mosquitoes. Runnelling has increased in popularity in Aus­tralia and resulted in reduced pes­ticide usage. Pat has monitored her first runnelling project for 14 years and has observed no undesirable impacts.

Pat has been a resident of Aus­tralia since 1976 and a citizen since 1996. She holds dual citizenship. She is a Londoner by birth and up­bringing, having experienced some of the London bombing during the big war, as a very, very young girl, of course. She took her B.A. de­gree in Geography at the Univer­sity of Southhampton in the south

of England. It was there she met Mike Dale whom she married one week after graduation, and with whom she had fou r ch ildren. Michelle and Paul were born in the Yorkshires, where Dr. Mike lectured in Botany. Pat taught Religion and Science at a primary school in York­shire.

Pat and Mike made their first trip to the States in 1968 for Mike's postdoc at Mich igan State Univ. This was Pat's first of two short stints as a Housewife . It was on to Australia after the postdoc where Pat became a Research Assistant in Geography at Australian National University in Canberra . For those of you who can not remember state capitals let alone country capitals, Canberra is the capital of Oz. No Dorothy, the capital of Oz is not the Emerald City. Canberra was ferti le ground for the Dales, first came Penny in 1968 and then Tamara in 1970. It was back to London in 1971 where Pat became a Tutor with Open University where she taught earth sciences, including physics, via the telly, radio and, on occasion, by telephone. The early days of distance learning had their roots at Open University, so it seems.

Finally, in 1972, the Dales moved to Australia for good, this time to Brisbane on Queensland's southeast coast. Pat became a Lecturer in Geography at the Uni­versity of Queensland (Uni Q), taught Social Science at the Col­lege of Advanced Education (CAE) and, when not taking care of four kids, taught remedial math at local schools.

After another brief stint as a housewife in the Netherlands, Pat resumed her academic pursuits in earnest when she returned to Brisbane. She completed her M.S. degree in Social Science at Uni Q in 1976, writing a thesis on Urban Social Change in the Inner City. She studied as a full time Common­wealth Scholar while continuing to teach at CAE and Uni Q.

Also in 1976, Pat became a Tu­tor and eventually a Lecturer at Griffith Uni in the School of Austra­lian Environmental Studies. It was at Griffith where she began her mosquito control work. In 1980, she was invited to join a team looking for alternative methods to control saltmarsh Aedes. This work was a direct result of a visit by Keith Ferguson to the US in 1978. When Keith returned to Australia, he en­couraged more research on mos­quitoes . Dr. Brian Kay of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, a well known medical entomologist himself, took up the cause and enlisted Griffith Uni to help. Enter Pat Dale. At this point I could say "the rest is history" ex­cept that assumes you know, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story." Since you likely do not know the rest of Pat's story I will continue.

Pat's work with Griffith col­leagues led to the runnelling project on Coomera Island in southeast Queensland. Studies on Coomera began in 1980 and led to the runnelling in 1985. Pat has moni­tored this project yearly ever since.

On other fronts, in 1990, Pat, along with Keith Ferguson, resus­citated the Mosquito Control Asso­ciation of Australia (MCAA). Using her law degree, completed in 1993, Pat incorporated the MCAA. She also serves on the MCAA Execu­tive (management committee), is the Editor of the quarterly Bulletin, and will become President in Sep­tember of 1998. In 1995, Pat and I formulated the Australia-Florida Ex­change Program sponsored by the MCAA and the Florida Mosquito Control Association. To date, four Australian operational mosquito control officers (Roy Durre, Mark Farrelly, Dave Allaway and Darren Allsemgeest) have come to Florida (and Minnesota in one case) and two Florida operational mosquito controllers (John Gamble and Pe­ter O'Bryan) have gone to Austra­lia for stints ranging from six weeks

to three months. With a lull in her work schedule, Pat completed her Ph.D. in 1997. The Author Pat has a long list of scientific publications, including two books and several book chapters, in a wide variety of subjects and journals.

Pat's personal interests and abilities are as wide ranging as her professional endeavors. Her favor­ite title now is Granny. She has four granddaughters, Emma, Jacinta, Zoe and Gabrielle and one grand­son, David. Pat uses her Crafts­man title to sew dresses, bring teddy bears to life and write books for the kids. She is considering life after mosquito control as the Cre­ator and Artistic Director of the Granny Pat Label. Pat has been a Scout Leader for over 20 years, teaching young Aussies about na­ture at a camp called Eprapah. Her other interests include supporting the arts, bushwalking (hiking), swimming, sailboarding, gardening, reading, writing letters to her many overseas and Aussie friends, and practicing Qi Gong and Tai Chi. Now you know the rest...

As I complete this work of words describing a dynamic woman ofthe 1990s, Pat provides a background of piano music, another of her loves and skills. She also plays recorder, often with her youngest, Tamara, with whom she has breakfast al­most daily on the veranda, the place where Pat finds her peaceful moments in life, communing with the lorikeets, butcher birds, maggies and kookaburras.

Charlie Morris is an Associ­ate Professor and Extension Medical Entomologist with the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory of the University of Florida, Vero Beach. Voice and Fax: 561-778-7204; Email: cdmo@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Summer 1998 13

Setting the Record Straight on the Non-existent Link Between Methoprene and frog Deformities

Editor's note: Due to the special inter­

est of the mosquito control community in the subject matter in this article, it has been afforded priority sta­tus for publication.

What do deformed frogs and the insecticide methoprene have in common?

Nothing. Despite speculation in the me­

dia and by some researchers that a link exists between methoprene and frog deformities, there is sig­nificant evidence that methoprene cannot be the cause. As the mak­ers of methoprene-based pest con­trol products, we feel compelled to speak out and speak up in defense of this important tool in the fight against disease-spreading insects.

In addressing the mythical link between methoprene and frog de­formities, three key points are im­portant:

0 First, there is no evidence of methoprene or its metabolites in water samples from Minnesota ponds that have produced frog de­formities.

0 Second, there is no geo­

by~~~

Unfortunately, methoprene got caught in the middle of this media circus and scientif ic debate. Methoprene was first mentioned as a possible cause at an EPA work­shop on frog deformities in the Fall

graphic connection ,------------------.., between the use of GQorrophio ~t':flPMICf> B~;tu~n 1\.kdw:pr!Xle u~ methoprene and re- snd Frog txiniu~ in Minnc<ot" ports of frog deformi-ties.

0 And finally, data f rom more than 17 studies on the effects of methoprene on amphibians, including six species of frogs, shows absolutely no evidence of deformi­ties. In fact, a recent EPA study of methoprene con­cluded that methopren~e=-------o-f -1-9-96- .- A-t -th- e- tim- e-, -re_s_e_a-rc_h_e_.Jrs did not cause deformities. were speculating about a number

So how did methoprene get in- of possible causes, including pes-valved in the frog deformity issue ticides. The "methoprene hypoth-in the first place? esis" is based on the assumption

The story began when, during that methoprene is being applied a field trip nearly three years ago, in ponds for mosquito control where

a group of Minne- frogs are developing, and is some-,-------------------~ seta school chil- how interfering with their develop-

r..l..:u.!l Mlc!)ltil.\ Di!iuii'Cp.mui><~:a lk~\'lo\:L"II?vfctfhlpl'l;•~c UM: a11d Frog Dclormtlh:~ in Florido

14 Summer 1998

dren discovered ment. However, the facts do not frogs with extra support this assumption. legs and mis­placed eyes. Their discovery triggered a flurry of nation­wide media atten­tion and an inter­national race among scientists who rushed to find the cause of the deformities.

In a joint effort to determine the cause of frog deformities, two gov­ernmental agencies, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the National Institute of Envi­ronmental Health Science (NIEHS), conducted extensive studies on water samples taken from affected ponds - the same water which produced deformities in frogs dur­ing laboratory tests.

The conclusion of those stud­ies is that no traces of methoprene or its metabolites have been found in any of the water samples. Re­porting at the Midwest Decl ining Amphibian Conference in March, Judy Helgen, wetlands biologist for the MPCA, said, "Three different labs have measured for methoprene and its breakdown products, but none has picked up any of those compounds in our study sites."

Initial tests were conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sci­ence which concluded that - at the limits of detection - there was no evidence of methoprene or methoprene metabolites in water from the affected sites. Additional confirming tests by Well mark Inter­national and an independent lab in Florida yielded the same result.

The conclusive evidence from these water analyses confirmed what we already knew about the use of methoprene to control mos­quitoes: methoprene has not been used in a large majority of the ar­eas where frog deformities are be­ing found. Methoprene is primarily used in urban areas to control dis­ease-spreading mosquitoes, and a majority of the deformities in Min­nesota have been found in rural areas.

Long before the water analyses results were in, Wellmark prepared a map comparing reported frog deformity sites against methoprene use in the United States. The map shows very clearly that no pattern exists betw een the use of methoprene and the occurrence of frog deformities. The map shows areas where deformed frogs have been found, but methoprene has not been used, and vice versa. In Minnesota, where the largest num­ber of deformed frogs have been reported, methoprene is used to control mosquitoes in just two of 44

counties with deformities. How­ever, in Florida, where methoprene is widely used to control mosqui­toes, only one deformed frog has been reported in the entire state.

We are aware of a recent study that used artif icially-produced breakdown products of methoprene to induce deformities. The study in question was con­ducted in a laboratory setting us­ing grossly exaggerated dose rates and does not reflect the actual use patterns for methoprene. Under natural conditions in a swamp or pond ecosystem, methoprene me­tabolites do not persist and could never be present at the distorted levels used in these studies.

The author of this study notes that, in order for the study to be relevant, methoprene or its metabo­lites must be shown to exist - at the extremely high levels used in the study - in areas where high levels of deformities have been found. As we have established, neither methoprene or methoprene metabolites have been found in the water.

Since it was first registered with the Environmental Protection Agency in 1975, and reviewed again in 1992, methoprene has been repeatedly tested for safety and effectiveness under EPA guidelines. Data from more than 17 studies on the effect of methoprene on amphibians- from egg to larvae to tadpole to adult ­shows absolutely no evidence of deformities. When measured us­ing standard safety studies, methoprene ranks better than com­mon food items such as sugar and table salt.

In the summer of 1997, the EPA conducted a study on methoprene and ultraviolet light that concluded that methoprene had no develop­mental effects on frogs, even at concentrations much higher than

actual use rates, and that UV light did not increase the toxicity of methoprene.

No one knows for sure what is causing the deformities in frogs. Ultravio let radiation , parasites, chemicals and fertil izer runoff are all under consideration. But the record needs to be set straight: there is no relevant scientific or practica l ev idence to support speculation that there is a link be­tween frog deformities and the use of methoprene to control mosqui­toes or other target insects.

Despite the overwhelming prac­tical and scientific evidence that clears methoprene, we take this issue very seriously, as we would any question concerning the safety of our products. Our dedication to health and safety and our commit­ment to the public demands that we constantly evaluate our products. Therefore, in addition to our own testing, Wellmark is cooperating with environmental researchers and governmental agencies to de­termine the cause of these puzzling deformities.

r George Lindahl is the Director of Development for Wellmark International, Inc. and has over 16 years practi­cal experience working with methoprene and methoprene­based pest control products.

'

Summer 1998 15

The Personnel Exchange Pro­gram between the Mosquito Con­trol Association of Australia and the Florida Mosquito Control Associa­tion started in 1994. Currently, four Australians (all Queenslanders) and two Floridians have been part of the exchange . While both Queensland and Florida are known as the Sunshine State, the similari­t ies don't end there. These ex­changes have started close rela­tionships between the two associa­tions and have led to considerable sharing of information. The mos­quito control programs have co­evolved and have some striking contrasts and many similarities.

The leadership of these pro­grams generally comes from very different educational backgrounds. In Queensland, most of the educa­tion is from a public health perspec­tive. In Florida, most of the educa­tion is science, especially entomol­ogy. The Australian programs have a broader management perspec­tive with the Florida programs hav­ing a st ronger technical back­ground. Both of these styles fit well into the designed functions of these programs.

The focus of the programs is considerably different. Florida is, for the most part, nuisance control while Australia is more vector con­trol and disease prevention. Ironi­cally, mosquito-borne disease out­breaks are publicly and govern­mentally perceived as more unac­ceptable in Florida than in Austra­lia. The public health background of the Australians is very important in the coordination of resources and information. Florida programs rely almost totally on their own to ac-

16 Summer 1998

Mosquito Control in the Sunshine State(s)

complish thei r nuisance control. The control emphasis is also quite different because of the different fo­cus. Ass istance from chemica l companies and state authorities in researching alternative methods is extremely limited in Australia and relies on individual or a group of local mosquito control programs to fund this research.

In Australia, the majority of the control is larviciding, with most operations currently using a sand formulation of Altos id® as the primary larvicide . New source reduction projects (e.g., runnelling =rotary ditching), are implemented at a slow pace. Adulticiding is a very minor component of almost all pro­grams. Adulticiding and larviciding both are major components in Florida. New source reduction projects are also moving slowly, with most source reduction involv­ing managing projects al ready implemented such as impound­ments and ditches. In both coun­tries, the environmental regulatory community is hesitant to approve new source reduction projects for fear of negative environmental im­pacts, yet approvals for residential development continue unabated. This results in even greater depen­dence upon chemical applications for control, an unhealthy trend.

Funding for mosquito control is considerably different. Austral ian programs are primarily funded un­der Environmental Health Depart­ments of the shires (counties) and cities. Only a few of the largest met­ropolitan areas have dedicated mosquito control units, which also serve additional duties such as pest and rodent control. Florida pro-

grams are usually dedicated to mosquito control, with a few districts being multi-purpose. The majority of Florida districts are organized un­der the county government, with several being independent districts and a few organized under a city. The level of funding is considerably higher for Florida programs, the re­sult of a much higher tax base. This higher funding results in more re­sources being available to Florida programs. The lack of funding has made the Australian programs more self-reliant and in some ways more creative and resourceful.

Most, if not all Australian pro­grams contract aerial application, while surveillance is still conducted in-house. Many Florida programs own their own aircraft, some con­tract out aerial services and some do without. Many of the Australian programs have a shortage of ve­hicles with sharing a vehicle be­tween two field workers being com­mon. This reduces the effective­ness of small programs where cov­erage is critical. Florida programs seem to have few problems provid­ing vehicles for field personnel.

The salt marsh environment is very similar in Australia and Florida. Published tide tables can predict the majority of salt marsh mosquito production, thereby allowing the Australian programs to coordinate larviciding efforts. Another differ­ence is that the tide cycle is con­siderably higher in Australia. That is also why runnelling is much shal­lower than our marsh ditching. The freshwater habitats are similar, al­though there is considerably more relief in Australia. The flatness of Florida creates more freshwater

continued on page 25

First published as a

Supplement to the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association,

VOL. 13. - December 1997.

Pl'rsons involvl'd in mosquito identification, biology, sw·veillance and control activitil's and epidemiologic.al invl'stigations will be interested in purchasing this

publication. Additionally, individuals interestl'd in conducting a multidisciplinary l'Valuation of a mosquito sibling species compll'x will find the public.ation useful.

The publication is available for $15.00 including U. S. shipping and handling. Advance payment is required. Visa, Mastercard, American Express, check or money order accepted in US dollars only. Priority Shipping & Handling not available outside the continental U.S .. Airmail applies and begins at $10.00 for first item. Please add $4.00 for each additional item.

JOURNAL OF THE Al'\IERICAN MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION

Mosquito News

Volume 13 D ecember 1997 Supplement

CONTENTS

ARTICLES Analysis of theAnopheles (Anopheles)

quadrimacu/arus Complex of Sibling Species ..... . J . Reiner·t, P. Kaiser , J . Seawright

Analysis of the Cuticulae Hydrocarbons Among Species of the Anopheles quadrimaculatus .....

D. C ar lson, J . R einert, U. Bernier , B . Sutton, J . Seam·ight Bibliography of Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say sensu Ia to (Diptera: Culicidae)

J . R einert

ABSTRACT. The Anopheles quadrimaculatus complex of 5 cryptic species (i.e., An. diluvialis Reinert, new species; An. inundatus Reinert, new species; An. mawr/ius Reinert, new species; An. quadrimaculatus Say; An. smaragdinus Reinert, new species) is analyzed using multiple techniques, including morphological, cytological, molecular, genetic, biochemical, and ecological procedures. All life stages (egg, 4th-instru· larva, pupa, and female and male adults) are described using morphological features, and pertinent stages or stmctures are illustrated. A neotype for An. quadrimaculatus is designated, and the synonymy of An. annulimanus Van der Wulp is confirmed. Several new morphological features are described. New and summarized data fi'om published literature on hybridization, cytological, electrophoretic, molecular, and cuticular hydrocarbon studies are included. Immature and adult bionomics are given. The geographic distribution for each species is listed and shown on maps. Procedures for collecting, processing, and rearing specimens are described. Keys using morphological characters are included for the eggs, 4th-instar larvae, pupae, adult females, and male genitalia. Also, a biochemical key for the 5 species is include.d. Color and pattern variations of larvae and pupae are discussed.

I nterested Persons may order by sending a f ax (318) 478-9434 or e-mail: amcaintl@lfelteclt.net. Please make checks payable to AMCA, 2200 East Prie11 Lake Rd., Lake Charles, LA 70601.

P1l'ase Ship To: Nan1e: ________________________________________ Phone: ______________ __

Address: _____________________________________ .Fax: _________ _

City, State, Zip:. _________________________ _

DVisa DMastercard DAmerican Express Cru·d No. ________________ exp. __ I __

Signature: _______________________ Printed Name of Card Holder: __________________ __

Summer 1998 17

r

~e \)looks

I am one of those modem rari­ties who studied Latin for six years and Greek for four years in second­ary school. This does not mean that I consider myself an accomplished student of the Classics, but it does mean that I still have Latin and Greek dictionaries sitting on my bookshelf. By the same token, I will be the first to admit that this experience is an excellent grounding for further stud­ies in science, given that so much scientific terminology and English vocabulary is based on these lan­guages. This is particularly so in the naming of genera and species.

In my Agricultural Entomology studies under Professor Fred McDonald at Sydney University, we had to recognize and name agricul­tural pests. We always knew that if we were given a ladybird beetle in a practical exam it was prudent to count the spots- the two pest spe­cies were the 26- and 28-spot lady­birds. I can still remember the name of the 28-spot ladybird, Henosepi/achna octoviginti-punctata. If I tell you that the Latin for 20 is viginti, it is too hard to work out which bit means 28 spot. Do not ask me what Henosepilachna means; my Greek

It's All Creek To Me!

dictionary is too small to include that or its roots. I think it might be some­thing to do with the number one and a lottery ticket.

The names of some of the Aus­tralian mosquitoes are interesting for those of us in the game encounter. Some mosquitoes are named for notable culicidologists. For example, Anopheles bancroftii was named af­ter Bancroft, the man who discov­ered the agent that causes Bancroftian filariasis, often called el­ephantiasis. Aedes dobrotworskyi and Aedes theobaldihonortwo work­ers who described many Australian mosquito species. And finally, Cx. marksae was named after Dr. Eliza­beth (Pat) Marks, who has described many Australasian species and is re­garded as the doyen of Australian mosquito taxonomists.

Other species are named after localities where the species were collected. Examples include Ae. burpengaryensis named for the town of Burpengary, A e. eidsvoldensis for the town of Eidsvold, Ae. elchoensis for Elcho Island, and Cx. orbostien­sis for the town of Orbost. The fol­lowing list (Tables 1) is not meant to be exhaustive. and it only includes

AMMIA,INC. T'he Preh:med ltlSuranr:~ P'ouram

those species with names based on Latin and Greek words which hap­pen to be in my dictionaries. Of course, the origins of many names will be obvious to those without a knowledge of the Classics. Some of these names describe physical char­acters and can be misleading, as those characters may not be unique for that species.

Some of the names are amus­ing. I will never look at all those won­derful, outstanding speckled scales on E. a/ternans again without re­membering that the subgenus Mucidus means moldy. I have never seen a specimen of Ae. cuna­bulanus,but I think its name is a mar­velous use of Latin. And there is the subtlety of Ae. tremu/us, with the name referring to the delicate shim­mering flight of this species. ~

r Mike Muller is the Medical Entomologist with Brisbane City Council, Mosquito & Pest Services, 145 Sydney Street, New Farm, QLD 4005; Email: MEDENT@bit.net.au

continued on paqe 19

~w ~. &wiN . ~NeJ. et~t<i tJpui4C radK9 i~ict.i t~IJJ a«4 ~(4Ut M.e ~ C().Jt

~ t/4/t/.l~ ,f.it~fJ.mttU ft'UJtelf/,()4,

f" 1 1 oH I !Ioiii '"

l'lll•ll• ' 1111 I • I htl Ill

1 0 .::> lUilllll::i 1 )1 )1 0

(,)

' ,,,,,,.,,, , ,,, •lh

\ I h I llllltll

\ &I t •n llull 1111rl~ Jtt .,_: Uld I

TABLE 1 Genus

Species Detivation Genus Sjle"cies Derintion

Subgenm l..alin (L) or Greek (G) root wool i>lbwed by tbe fngtish tr.tmlati:l!l Anopheles anopheles (G) useless

Aaieomyia aaies (G) 111pleasall; muia (G) fty am ictus amictus (L) dressed. cblhed

catasticta katastikta (G) spotted atratipes atratus (L) black; pes (L) fuot

venustipes venustus (L) atllactive; pes (L) lbol tessellatus tessellatus (L) checked, tiled

A ales aaies (G) tq>l1asanl Culex culex (L) msquito, gmt

Mucidus mucidus (L) m ldy annulirostris annulus (L) riJg; rostrom (L) beak, snout

Ck!tlerotatus od!lerotas (G) anno)iog tromlesotre

Stegomyia stega (G) roo( sreler; milia (G) fiy bitaeniorhynciJUs bi- (L) two; tainia (G, L) ri>b011, band; rhunchos (G) soout

aculuJtus aculuJtus (L) ~ prrlly crinicauda crms (L) hac, caudal (L) tail

albolineatus a/bus (L) v.h; lineatus (L) tired fraudatrix fraudatrix (L) swmler

camptorhynchus kamptos (G) bell; rhunclkJs (G) S1lOil mimulus mimulus (L) actor

cunabulanus cunabula (L) ~ (fype locaily is Cooe Valley) molestus molestus (L) anno}ing

flavifrons jlavus (L) yei>w;fitms (L) brow, i>relr.1d pullus pullus (L) dark f!feY

fmJereus funereus (L) filleral, l3lal quinquefasciatus quinque (L) fr.;e;Jasciarus (L) stqJed

longirostris longus (L) ~ rostrum (L) beak, S1lOii squamosus squamosus (L) scaly

luteifemur luteus (L) ~lbw, orange; femur (L) 1hig)l Toxorhynchites toxon (G) bow; rhunchos (G) soout

multiplex multiplex (L) mmy-siied, li:kE, sly speciosus speciosus (L) showy, beautiful

nivalis nivalis (L) soowy Tripteroid es tri- (L) tllee; pteron (G) b.tber, wing. pmr (?)

notoscriptus nota (G) tbe back; scriptus (L) drawn aJgettteiventris 111genteus (L) silver; venter (L) belly

procax procax (L) bokl, ilsolert bimaculipes bi- (L) two; macula (L) spo~ pes (L) fuot

sagax sagax (L) kren, keen-scented punctolateralis punctum (L) poirt, spot; latera/is (L) on ille sile

sapiens sapiens (L) snmt, discreet Uranotaenia

silvestris silvestris (L) ofille i>rest albescens albescens (L) becoming while

spinosipes spinosus (L) tlnmy, prrldy; pes (L) lbol IIlg)'Wfarsis a~gJJros (G) sill~ tarsos (G) instep, i>ot

subaundorsum sub (L) wier; llll1IIUS (L) gokleD; dorsum (L) back nivipes nivis (L) smw, pes (L) i>ot

tnmtulus fnmlulus (L) treaDling. shi\mJg Mansonia

vigilax vigilax (L) watclWI septempunctata septem (L) se\~ puncrata (L) spotted

vittiger vitta (L) band, ~; gero (L) to v.ear uniform is rmifonnis (L) sin:ple

BVA MOSQUITO CONTROL PRODUCTS

BVA 2 Larvicide Oil EPA#70589

Quick Kill Lruvicide Short-Tetm

BVA 13 EPA # 55206-2

The Clear Choice For ULV Diluents

BVA Maximum Flushing Oil Cleans Nozzles and Tanks

Dissolves Insecticide Residues and Sludge Deposits

BVA OILS 800-231-3376 FAX # 248-348-2684

BVA Chrysalin EPA# 045987-6-55206

Botanical Long Life Lruvicide

BVA Fog OillOO Naphthenic Oil

Used for Certain Fogging Operations

E-MAIL: BVAOILS@AOL.COM

Summer 1998 19

here~ hav~e been ,a lot of changes lately ...

,, •• bltt NOT WITH US! APCO soU offe-~ th...: IHU . t t'4iffDf!'lCt e ll'aO~

t~ l ifUal i ty pnxluc ts Ft''li" lftl• · mh.- t~J:"un tmt lnuueu.as wsnge. Compames grow ano cn:smnd. c:hang ~r names or dose 'U'Iair doom. ADAPCO 1ls still ~e or eornpany. our oompany motto ramaJn;; the SIH'Ill"l, 'growth through service WJth m1sgmy"

We eon~Jnue to support 'lhts industry, prov•d,ra the bes• equipment and clhemlcals avallublo, and continue our ra seor~ch end dravelopement ro coosra.mly lmprov~ our product II ne

_..,;,~..,~ __,ji'.I:II'JI'~ .... ~

~tDAP~CQ IINIC.

""""'"'' ~1'1.1:1",.

·tr""Mhi through senlN:e wllfl i'rll.,.-,rllJI •

•ti\J[J 4 r1ro111NC:I"L C'C'Um, Sili.NPOI>lb, ~L.QH11~3·'f;'~~ "1 11' 1101Jo,.:J6HD59 • F.IU' ,f.tfWJ 3:1Mil8il l•tU!L.l Mll~~l'!'llBlibm.clJftl

f,l JS1 l.l~ltNu MB.IBEfl5 OF FJ.I(;h AP,

( News You Can Use ... ] Society of Vector Ecology Annual Meeting

Pennsylvania Vector Control Association Annual Conference

Florida MCA Annual Fall Meeting

October 4 - 7, 1998 College Station, TX Contact: Major S. Dhillon (909) 340-9792

Utah MAA Annual Conference

October 12 - 13, 1998 Moab, Utah Contact: Glen Collett (801) 355-9221 e-mail:mcollett@inquo.net

North Carolina MVCA Annual Meeting

October 14- 16, 1998 Holiday Inn Bordeaux Fayetteville, NC Contact: Charles S. Apperson (919) 515-4326

October 14 - 16, 1998 Days Inn/State College, PA For more information contact: Jacquelyn Hakim 84 East Shenango Street Stroudsburg, PA 18360 Call (717)420-3525 or e-mail : jahakim@ptd.net

Louisiana MCA Annual Meeting

October 26 - 28, 1998 Hotel Acadiana in Lafayette, LA For more information contact: Bonnie Broussard Vermilion Parish MAD P.O. Box 209 Abbeville, LA 70510 Phone: (318) 898-4330 Fax: (318) 898-0717

November 15 - 18, 1998 Sheraton Sand Key Clearwater Beach, FL

For more information contact: Shelly Redovan P.O. Box 60837 Fort Myers, FL 33906-0837 Phone :(941 )694-21 7 4 Fax:(941 )694-6959 e-mail: redova@mail.dms.state.fl.us

Is there an important meeting you would like to include in this section? If so, forward the meeting date, location and contact information to the Editor-in-Chief (mailing infor­mation on page 3).

S ,up ~erior Sampling Equiptncnt For S u p e r i or Res u Its

Chill Table f hIs in~tJn l11u~ e :~~~~It! Juusn 't rt!qui r~ •L ~;i nl\, J•rc~fc~~Hnu.l it!ca un~s lnL'hJIJ.lc : t11~J ml sut·fact.t I'Q illlour, ~n K)' *ljmmnem to ~ j:'C/2 5" F'. r.nlLl udlz~ad \\1\l'rk l'!UrfOI..!'" rnark~U With 'hvh;i4!i1 lin~ flrul mon:.

ABC Trap Kit ~ Au r ha~k· k ll i~ ldn~i rU.!c L ..:d \\ f l h 1 he l~.:<ri.Ut'L!S \ llU Hl.!l.:'~l 10

' 11111l~c \'HUf juh •-'ll"'iL:r :~U \\ •.mt ln:r dl!.!,i~~~ . ~"' .. tt;thmw, ~ rn..\i!,l!'dJnmahl~ mcl'l.lt!l'l,

phnm._,t,!'fiMir. c.u;Uy emprit...:r.l !Hu1ple Hdju.sm1tm1 :mtl nJJ.J pt­

allil i ~\' fm f:< l ;t ~mb:.sinn ... - - - - - -

- Ca,n for our 16 pa91e cat~l! og 1-B00-323-5727 -- - - -- --

I I -rr ~MB/IICAN

BIO.PHPSICS'

Ord•··· On .. nnr! I.HII ~~~~ : w I C1 r I< 1.: (a\! lt l ll:"!&.fl l l [ft.(' CHU

\\t t! j, : ''' ,., \\ . ~ 1)\ (~ S tj U I t If • C 4J Ill

' ://ii!IJ. D t .s J r t b u J e d ;_, •t

-~ C lar,ke MosquIto Contro~ l Products, lnc. Summer 1998 21

The Oz--Florida Exchange Program

One day in Brisbane Australia in 1993, remarking on the similari­ties of the mosquito problems in Queensland and Florida, Dr. Pat Dale of Griffith Un ivers ity in Brisbane, Australia and Dr. Charlie Morris of the University of Florida's Medical Entomology Laboratory in Vero Beach, considered a new idea. They thought it would be ben­eficial to have a program where op­erational mosquito controllers in Queensland and in Florida could visit each other's country to ex­change ideas about mosquito con­trol. Academics from Australian had been attending mosquito con­ferences around the world for years and more recently, Florida scientists were making the trip down under. Maybe the time was right for op­erational people to learn from each other. That was the beginning of what was to become the Australian­Florida Mosquito Control Exchange Program. To get it started, Pat got approval from the Australian Taxa­tion Department's Eligible Training Program Scheme to allow the Aus­tralian representatives to get train­ing credits. Charlie approached the Florida Mosquito Control Associa­tion (FMCA) to sponsor the Ex­change in 1994 but the idea was rejected.

In the summer of 1994, the first two Australian mosquito controllers landed in Florida. Roy Durre of the Gold Coast and Dave Alloway of Albert Shire represented mosquito contro l programs in coastal Queensland. Roy, with scruffy beard, weathered look, and classic Aussie accent made Floridians think Crocodile Dundee himself had arrived. With his love of nature and

22 Summer 1998

keen intellect, Roy quickly became immersed in Florida fishing .. . er, mosquito control. As a field super­visor, he brought a practical back­ground to his tour, jumping in with a rea l hands-on approach . Roy wasn't so well received back home. When he returned he found he had been re-structured out of a job. For­tunately, re-structuring continued and Roy had his job back and was able to quickly put his Florida ex­periences to use.

In contrast, Dave was more management oriented, keenly inter­ested in how Florida mosquito con­trol programs were organized. Not to be outdone by Roy, Dave's Albert Shire had been re-organ ized out of existence and with it Dave's job. That was the bad news. The good news was that Albert Shire was amalgamated w ith , yes you guessed it, Gold Coast. Eventu­ally Dave became the manager of the new mosquito control program with Roy as one of his upper-level staffers.

Roy and Dave each visited sev­eral Florida programs, including East Vol usia, Pasco, Manatee, Lee, Collier and Indian River. Roy stayed with hosts who were em­ployees of the programs while Dave, who had more financial re­sources, rented accommodations.

There was no Exchange activ­ity in 1995 as the FMCA still was unconvinced of the benefits of the program. The Exchange kicked back into gear in July of 1996 with the arrival of two more Australians, Darren Alsemgeest of Redland Shire and Mark Farelly, another Gold Coaster.

Darren, a young, shy, soft-spo­ken upstart director of a new mos­quito control program with lots of money, brought an inquisitive, sci­entific, professional approach to the States. Darren came to Florida with a Miss Felicity Crocker. Before leaving Australia, Darren ensured Felicity that her quitting her job to travel with him to America would be a memorable trip. Indeed it was be­cause Darren soon proposed to Felicity. Darren and Felicity were wed in Australia the next year and had a Red, White and Blue celebra­tion party. Darren's other major con­tribution to the exchange of ideas was the introduction of Vegemite, a yeast by-product which young Australians eat as a gastronomic treat; the Americans put it in the same category as castor oil.

If you ever wondered what years of rugby could do to a nose, Mark Farewell has the answer for you. He quickly proved his athletic ability by joining in the backyard baseball games and learning the infield fly rule. This proved to be only slightly less difficult than the American's learning the rules of cricket. Mark brought a no-non­sense field background to Florida and was well received. The rumors of his trouble with the law over in Manatee County with Mark Latham were greatly exaggerated.

In 1996, the FMCA finally ap­proved the Exchange program and that same year helped fund the travel of John Gamble, the Assis­tant Director of East Volusia Mos­quito Control District in Daytona Beach to Australia as the first Flo­ridian in the Exchange. John had

continued on page 25

them,

ou ~ more ht p to contn:M mosquitoes. Something efficitrtL Somfth ng saf• for the environment. Something tasl eHearve. You need AGNIQUe-- MMf MOSQUJTO LAWtCIOE AND PUPIODE. a new, biodegradable, urf~ firm AG IQUE MMF Meds no premMCing, uses conventiona spraf ng: m hock d less than a quart ~oven a surf ate we of wa r. These features, alanq Mth AGNtQUE ... MMF s unlqu ~abi 1ty, reduce the nl.lmber of manhaull requ red to control mosquit:Oe. And, you can apply it w'ltel'i ver mosquitoes breed. at any stage of th ir ltf cyd . For mora inform tio11, contact our c:fl5tiibutcr. Van Waters & Roq~n at 800a888-4VWR.

DIB·II 1Ca ~ ce:nlra1• provitfiiiGII, riD.nS'illlllll kno1kdown of mlult masqultHJ.

vgaw~ in"a'1e:'xle fill~ Ml~ ill I ~~~and r.:Fjr;taruww...JOJ rn~

BY 1~11g DIDROM il!\ L:l~!l. yr.t.J lf.'0111 ~ ~ Wl'tMJJ Otlt.<e!iJ'oti.;, so ott ~iltflmer• 1~ earrpahble. tt C"4lJ1 a Itt lle~ Dy~llJ . lnl Dif

c::o;aage pal I' 100 o:e '1119 For a SCii.Jl.lon b:lldl QlJ"

rrea mosqullo CMtml, t!O.k ~ DI£!ROM Cctloonlf diG Mnku lllrc 11\ly nav~ QGt., lh!J. gfl"..t.lld i!li)llli'l

Sunshine States, continued from page 16. wetlands and the wildlife is diverse. The wetland bird life is very similar, although parrots and other bird groups make Australia much more colorful and unique, at least to the Americans who visit. The other ani­mals are quite different. Australian salt marshes are grazed by kanga­roos and patrolled by 6-foot goanna lizards. In Florida, we see the oc­casional deer, wild hogs and, of course, all igators.

One of the great similarities of people that work in these programs is their great love of the environ­ment. Mosquito control workers al­ways know where to view wildlife and are knowledgeable about their biology. The people that have been involved in this exchange have found lifelong friends on the other side of the planet. We have all eaten, drank, fished, and told sto­ries with each other as if we had known each other for decades.

In the future, should any one have the opportunity to participate in the Exchange Program, be it by host or guest, don't let the chance for a life-long experience slip away.

, John Gamble is the Assis­

tant Director at East Volusia MCD, New Smyrna Beach, FL. Email: jgamb/e@co. volusia.fl.us

Darren Alsemgeest is a Coordinator of Mosquito & Pest Management for the Red land Shire Council, Cleve­land, QLD. Emal:~qul.gcN.au Roy Durre is the Operations

Officer of the Gold Coast City Council (North), Gold Coast MC, QLD. Email: mcaa@winshop.com.au Peter O'Bryan is the Man­

ager for Larviciding and Per­manent Control at Indian River MCD, Vero Beach, FL. Email: pob1234@hotmail.com

Oz-Fiorida continued from page 22. hosted Durre , Alsemgeest and Farewell during their stays. It was rumored that in John's luggage, amongst all the fishing gear, bird books, binoculars and cameras was a larval dipper. John spent seven weeks touring various pro­grams in Queensland includ ing Brisbane City, Gold Coast, Redlands and Hervey Bay. In ad­dition, John attended the joint meet­ing of the Australian Arbovirus Con­ference and the Second National Conference of the Mosquito Con­trol Association of Australia. John was able to impart some specific advise and experience to the pro­grams he attended and prepared a list of recommenda tions for Florida programs in written and oral reports.

The second Floridian to partici­pate in the Exchange, in 1998, was Peter O'Bryan of Indian River Mos­quito Contro l District, in Vero Beach. Peter is the manager in charge of permanent control and larviciding, and also hosted several of the Australians. Peter visited not on ly Queensland but traveled across Australia and spent two weeks in Western Australia, thus expanding the program.

As this article is being written, lan Myles of Brisbane City Mos­quito Control is visi ting John Gamble, having just spent a week with Peter O'Bryan. lan has sev­eral more stops in Florida, Georgia, California and Minnesota before he returns home. The Exchange pro­gram has grown from a Queensland-Florida program to an Australian-United States program. There is no reason the idea can't be expanded to other countries that have mosquito control programs with similar problems. The FMCA is already considering that option for the next Floridian. ~

r . Peter O'Bryan 1s the Man-

ager for Larviciding and Per­manent Control at Indian River MCD, Vero Beach, FL. Email: pob1234@hotmail.com

Roy Durre is the Operations Officer of the Gold Coast City Council (North), Gold Coast MC, QLD. Email: mcaa@winshop.com.au John Gamble is the Assis­

tant Director at East Volusia MCD, New Smyrna Beach, FL.

\.Email: jgamb/e@co. volusia.fl.us

r Position available

Director-Amelia Island Mosquito Control

The District is seeking qualified candidates for the position of Director. A copy of the job classi­fication is available by contacting the District's office at (904 )262-5283. The successful applicant must have: (1) Knowledge of administrative and supply tech­niques : (2) knowledge of all phases of mosquito and weed control programs: (3) must be cer­tified in the category of Public Health Pest Control and Aquatic Weed Control with the Florida De­partment of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control;

(4) must meet minimum qualifica­tions under Florida Law; (5) must have a high school diploma or equivalent; (6) must possess and maintain a va lid Florida COL License prior to employment in this class; and (7) must also pass a drug test and physical exami­nation prior to employment. The starting annual salary is antici­pated to be $35,000 - $40,000, with benefits. Total annual bud­get of $983,467 .69 . Submit resume by October 1, 1998, to:

Amelia Island Mosquito Control District, P.O. Box 62, Fernandina Beach, FL 32035-0062.

Summer 1998 25

!..Dooon Foo liaS lllleo a rc:.;ra~ mat~ufaCWJ'T.:;! atld fl~porlllf m qltallll) I»>S1JLIIItl ~Oil~l i!qt.up rrumt :Sioon l FJ68. flaDP~e tho ~Wltld 1!'t~W ffllj)ilfl(1 t'111 fJUI ~1'0111R:l$ MlrJJ IRCIIidi!

ULV aemscl genermf'S and thermal foggers

Po!tlbl~;~ l~rld 4~rn~ mli\5' _ /JirV af!l) SmJII •11Wfor units

Trock !J.nd.Jrnifill u~ lll-'j]lant Jl~ Gf)fl.trDI ~S:

Mndel XKE~ lrLHJk or ~railer mmlfl=ntl Ut.V ~e~ 1Jefll!£(1t0i oft_prn ~lm~i~· and i!COOO~. a'llorset~utlllr.

JJ:mtucl•.z;. 1q_r lmrma.atE as.si~ce .srnl frell rr.arallljl!,

Model 18-20. i1 lle.'itiY dUly ULV l!llrOSot ~~J:IlBf.ator for IOOS(JUI­to IJOii1rtll PrOiTl •rOOk ar 4railer 18 holseJ)D'Nilr l'lYliftiP.!Il:l Wih,.l:!< -enoina Willi lh!! ~J;St feijiures.

!Model tCott. a liglw.~ht podable UlV !IBI'(Jsal gooern'lor, D:H'Ttr«~ rnosqulto~ Ullil!XIfS 3.fld Ol.ll'dOOIS.

IV1iJ.riuf;.u:.tlfF'f.ll''51 of~. i1f/Sf; End DriUf' tunt(-a/ NJU,rprrray~, :;,rrc;e ?StJB 506 Brimhall Avenue • P.O. BCXII. 4CIG long Lake' ~Mlnn~DJ3(IIisJ. MN 65,389 ~nf{!Nflatlon S1 :!~73·5366 Fax 6 112473-5'302 Order l[fle 800448-SB 2 5 Email Iandon fDg@,t~sliltcrn~tt.com

Sll9tllln1~ mild~ or FMCA sjtJ .A'MCA

Mod~l Siminator. the hind poffilbm tllermat fulJ{Ie~ has·a patenbid

lwo-stage J1)'J oenera~or. Known for LJnmatchaa ref~liif¥ S.ill03 196&

Wing Beats 27Summer 1998

suburban areas of Sydney not farfrom the Olympic site. Generally,Sydney is considered to be free ofmosquito-borne human disease, al-though RR virus was recently ac-tive in the far western suburbs ofGreater Sydney, Edge Hill virus (aflavivirus) has been recorded re-cently from the northeast of theSydney region, and a number of

arboviruses are endemic in ruralareas outside Sydney - as is thecase for the rest of Australia. Thus,there is a concern for the introduc-tion of arboviruses to the area, andtheir possible establishment in lo-cal vertebrate reservoirs or in mos-quito populations through verticaltransmission, and mosquito man-agement is therefore critical.

Vertebrate hosts of the twoflaviviruses of greatest concern,MVE and KUN, typically are waterbirds and although there would ap-pear to be suitable habitat availablein coastal regions near Sydney, nei-ther virus has been identified fromcoastal regions in eastern Austra-lia. RR virus is thought to be asso-ciated with native mammals suchas kangaroos and wallabies, andis widely distributed in both coastaland inland regions throughoutAustralia. Although there are no suchanimals in or near the wetlands ordevelopment area, there is a possi-bility that the virus will be introducedby viremic humans. The vertebratehosts of BF virus are not well under-stood and it is not possible to deter-mine relative risks with this virus.

The Solutions

Management of the mosquitopopulations in the area for the year

2000 and beyond has to be accom-plished with an ”environmentallyfriendly“ approach to conform to theoverall development philosophy. Anenvironmental management strat-egy for mosquito minimization hasbeen accepted, the principal ele-ments of which include:

The parts of the saline wetlandsthat are severely degraded are tobe rehabilitated. Initially, restorationof regular tidal interchange throughthe saline wetlands is the objectivefor removing much of the im-pounded stagnant water. This willimprove the health of the mangroveand saltmarsh plant communitiesand reduce habitat for Ae. vigilaxand Cx. sitiens. This tidal restora-tion will be achieved throughbreaching of a concrete sea walland clearing of drainage channelswhich have become ineffectivethrough blockage, siltation and ero-sion.

The effects that this restorationof tidal flows will have on the asso-ciated saltmarsh remain to be seen.Once it is clear that the problemswithin the mangroves have beeneliminated, and the impact on thesaltmarshes is evident, then run-n e l s(shallowditches)will bep r o -vided ont h esaltmarshto allownaturald e w a -tering ofthe de-p r e s -s i o n sthat pro-vide habitat for Ae. vigilax and Cx.sitiens.

Some of the constructed wet-lands will be heavily vegetated, oth-ers less so, and some not at all;thus there will be various concernsfor mosquito production, depen-dent on the objectives, nature and

management of the wetlands.Guidelines for the design and main-tenance of the constructed wet-lands have been provided with aview to minimizing populations ofCx. annulirostris and Cq. linealis.Recommendations for side slopesand depth, water and vegetationmanagement, and use of fish andbiorational pesticides, have beenaccepted and compromises are be-ing reached with the engineersstriving to meet their water manage-ment objectives.

Maintenance of the design fea-tures, and water and vegetationmanagement, have been acceptedas imperative for on-going mos-quito minimization and, althoughthere is a concern as to who will beresponsible for such maintenancein the longer term following theOlympic Games, there is reason tobe optimistic that such operationsare sustainable.

In previous years, one of the sa-line wetlands was part of a muni-tions facility of the Royal AustralianNavy, and ground-based larvicidingwith temephos was undertaken toreduce pest populations of Ae.vigilax. The use of temephos was

d i s c o n -t i n u e dbecauseof its del-eteriouse f f e c t son somec r u s t a -c e a n sand thebiorationala g e n tBacil lusthuringiensisisraelensishas be-

come the agent of choice. The con-trol of this Defense land has nowpassed to the Olympic Coordina-tion Authority, and while the engi-neering operations are being pro-gressed to re-establish tidal flush-ing, B.t.i. has been applied by heli-

Mozzies continued from page 8.

copter when larval populations of Ae. vigilax and Cx. sitiens were abundant. Methoprene is also a suitable alternative and comple­mentary biorational control agent for the sites, but this product is not yet registered for use throughout Australia and is not available for use at the site. Bacillus sphaericus would also be a useful agent to have for control of Culex species in constructed wetlands, but there is no registration of this agent for use in Australia and the commer­cial product is not available.

The use of predatory fish in the natural and constructed wetlands, and other habitats, to reduce mos­quito larval populations is also an important objective. The "mosquito­fish", Gambusia holbrooki, is cur­rently present in the drainage ba­sin and in various sites in the de­velopment area, but this introduced fish is considered a noxious spe­cies and its introduction into new habitats is not permitted. A number of native species such as the Pacif ic blue-eye Pseudomugil signifer, and various gudgeons (Hypseleotris species) are being considered for use in the brackish and freshwater habitats, respec­tively, but the complete exclusion of Gambusia may be difficult to achieve.

The Outcomes

Although the area is being devel­oped as a priority for the Olympic Games, the mosquito management proposals have been designed to provide for the various users of the area beyond the Year 2000:

The Games will be held during the months of September and Oc-

28 Summer 1998

tober in the year 2000 and, even without any active anti-mosquito measures, it is unlikely that there would be noticeable mosquito ac­tivity at that (early Spring) time of the year. The major saline pest spe-

cies Ae. vigil ax overwinters as eggs in the area and usually does not reach noticeable pest levels until late November or December; on past evidence the secondary pest species Cx. sitiens is not likely to create potential problems before January at the earliest. With the freshwater mosquitoes, Cx. annulirostris and Cq. linea/is are the species most likely to be pests, but neither is likely to create a nuisance concern before January.

Following the Games, the area will continue to host major sporting and other events, and with the es­tablishment of the parklands and other facilities the whole area will be an important recreation destina­tion for the Sydney community. The village for the Games athletes and officials that is being constructed on the site will become a suburban resi­dential area under a municipal au­thority, and a substantial community within the area and in adjacent resi­dential areas may be affected by mos­quitoes produced from the wetlands.

It has been accepted by the au­thorities that with the preservation of "natural" wetlands and the con­struction of "artif icial" wetlands in the area, there will continue to be mosquito production in the area and, notwithstanding the efforts to institute environmental controls on mosquito populations, some on-go­ing mosquito management will be required. Surveillance will be a criti­cal component of this manage­ment, and the extent of operational anti-mosquito measures required will be dependent on the effective­ness of the environmental manage­ment strategies for mosquito reduc­tion at the source - in the various wetland habitats.

Acknowledgements The Olympic Coordination Au­

thority and the Department of De­fence have provided funding for the investigations associated with this project, and during the past 3 years the field work has been undertaken by my graduate students Cameron Webb and Karen Willems.~

Richard Russell is an Asso­ciate Professor in the Depart­ment of Medical Entomology, University of Sydney and ICPMR, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia.

Email: RichardR@cidm.wh.usyd.edu.au

He is the author of Mosquitoes and Mosquito-borne Disease in Southeast Australia and has a website at http:llwww­petsOnal.usyd.edu.au/"'Sdoccettl medical _entomology.htm that has additional information about mosquitoes and other medically important arthropods in Australia.

set Queen slander with unscreened 1wn1om"'s and dark storage area underneath - perfect to catch the wind and Ae. aegypti.

soup for a sick friend , and take home a bit of dengue. There is even a suggestion that mozzies hitched a ride. Two dengue patients had no connection to hotspots but remember being bitten by a mos­quito at the covered parking lot of a mall frequented by Parramatta Parkers.

Certainly this "slipperiness" beckons the notion that this virus is different. So far, we have had 164 confirmed DEN-3 cases, with another 14 probable. Perhaps the great escape talent of this virus is

Spraying Ae. aegypti swanning a payphone with aerosol pyrethroids.

due to its speed to infect mosqui­toes. Typically, at 28°C, it takes ten days for a mosquito, having taken an infected bloodmeal, to become infective to humans. If this virus zips in by 8 days, you would have more infective mosquitoes. Also, the vi­rus may produce a higher viremia in people. Thus a mosquito that takes even a small blood meal is infected. Interestingly, this has

proven to be a hot virus, with 25% hospitalization including a dengue hemorrhagic fever and a dengue encephalopathy (an unpronounce­able condition causing convulsions and, potentially, coma). Hot viruses often produce higher viremias.

So what will be the answer to this hot dengue? I groggily awoke, 4:03 on the digital clock. I felt a definite chill. Then, with a sudden rush of adrenaline, the thought

Andrew van den Hurk of the Tropical Public Health Unit treating with residual pyettrcid Oarrbda:yhalothrin) to control Ae. aeg}1Jti.

crossed my mind, "Has my luck run out, is this the beginning of a den­gue fever??" But I noticed that the dog had crawled under the blanket, and my wife cuddled up to me for warmth. It was cold -at least 15°C, the first real day of autumn. "Great!" I thought. 'Too cool for aegypti and too cold for dengue". Finally, light at the end of a very long dengue tunnel. Just about to nod off under my comfy blanket, I was suddenly jolted by the sensations responsible for my awakening in the first place. Off went the covers. I let out a re­signed sigh and stumbled into the early morning chill. "The bloody plumbing isn't what it used to be," I grumbled. ~

Scott Ritchie is with the """ Tropical Public Health Unit , Queensland Health, Cairns, Queensland Australia ; ritchies@health.qld.gov.au ~

Pro-Mist U L V Spray e r s

A Different

Sprayer .. All E~ectric ·Ultra Quiet ltght Weight · Modular

Rugged· Chemically Efficient

I t.C I{JilV Dill I:<: I

Beecomist !I M [S \ !IE AVICE

Beecomisl Systems 1"' • f,~·:· 1• r 11'.1 • J { t • I1A • J i!lt9 l!.J

I

IN U.S. 800-220-0787 OllrfER CAI.lS: 215-121·9424

FAX: 2l~-721-0?S1

Summer 1998 29

ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE MOSQUITO CONTROL PRODUCTS

Distribwed B~·

ZANUS CORPORATIONTM 'rhcAUt~id® Obtnburtor inlhe West and tledk~ued to the mOS<tuitot.1.mtm1 endl.tlO U'Y-.

ii:iiiii_iiiii_ LARVJCIDI!:S

:~;;~;;~;;~ ,\L-l'OSIJ~A.L.LSR-~O.llRIOI.'IlTh.Pfl.LJSt'S

ANDXJ< BRIQUETS NEW: AI: I'OSUJ® XRG GI<AI<UU'.

BJ()SJl)f'-1l.ARVICIDE wrrt-J BIOI>AC & AUOSIDALL

1'EKNAR®FIP·O ff" wn')l SliPPRESSEDSPORES AQ.ULJlCIDES ANVlL® l:l & lth l O WITH SUMJ11-I.R.LN OIOMJST® 3: 1:<,l:l.l,ll:60 & 3 J:b6 Wl'n l PER•O!TfiRIN

t:Q!IIPMENT THF. TRRMINAT0R" ' I'r;.,1 ICII)o,\PPIJC.XroR ARRO·GlJNT'' (IN:ANl'I./\R APPUCATORS (,.1)ijCAT!ONA L TRAJt'IING A !>If! SUPPLIES S~fETY EQUIPMENT LIGHT TRA 1',~ & MOSQUI ro SURVEY TQOI..S

ZANUS CORI'ORATIOI<" 11~9 ELCAMINO REAl- SUIre 1 ~4. MENLO PARK, CA •J402.1 li00·347•TilU. FAX. 65(t--.361t-ll04, <!·mail: z,ANUSCOI 6i1MSN COM: Yt~b WWW.7.AN11~,('0\t

Vector Control .. Through Urban Planning

by A~~ ad Pat 'Date

Traditionally, arbovirus disease management has focused on de­stroying mosquitoes close to hu­man settlements. This activity often involves spraying pesticides on or modifying wetlands and may be considered to have a negative im­pact on the relevant ecosystems. This problem may be avoided or reduced by plan­ning measures which man­age human land use, thereby minimizing the risk of human-mosquito interaction and hence of disease.

Using sou theast

the reduction of domestic mosquito breeding (covering of water tanks, emptying of buckets etc.), some of them could have a severe impact on coastal ecosystems, if applied literally:

10 (1 ): "Where there is on any premises any pond, pool, swamp,

AUSTRALIA

-· - ..... •• J·"'"' ... . ,.

- ...... ' . "'•

I ;;;; ..

I I r

or to obstruct any gutter, drain, or watercourse."

These provisions are in direct conflict with those of later legisla­t ion, such as the Fisheries Act (1994 ), which requires permits for disturbing marine vegetation, or the Nature Conservation Act (1992),

which protects areas of high conservation value, allowing mosquito control only if a se­rious threat to human health is shown and if the environ­mental effects are not consid­ered significant. Further, and this has not been tested, com­plying with the requirements of the regulations could lead to severe environmental harm and result in prosecution un­der the Environmental Protec­tion Act (1994). Until late in 1995, when SG was deleted, the Queensland Health Act appeared to be superior to other Queensland legislation. Now the situation is unclear

Queensland as an example we discuss some problems of mosquito management in expanding urban areas and suggest a framework for in­tegrating planning initiatives with traditional management methods to reduce both the need for active intervention in the mosquito environment and risk of disease. The gen­eral conclusions are appli-cable widely wherever arbo- b._~_;;.,;:;,;.,.======::_ __________ _

and has not been tested in the courts.

virus disease is a problem.

Mosquito Management in Queensland

Framework

The main legislation governing mosquito control in Queensland is the Queensland Health Act (1937) which delegates the mandatory control of mosquitoes to local gov­ernment. The associated Mosquito Prevention and Destruction Regu­lations 1982 declared all mosquito species as noxious. Although most of the regulations aim primarily at

or other accumulation of water or other liquid, whether permanent or not, which is likely to serve as a breeding-place or harborage for mosquitoes if it is not drained or filled in, the owner of the premises shall effectively drain or fully fill in such pond, pool, swamp or other accumulation of water or other liq­uid."

12 ( 1 b): "The owner of any pre­mises shall cut down and remove any vegetation or undergrowth that is likely to serve as a breeding­place or harborage for mosquitoes

It is the responsibility of local governments to ensure that the regulations are enforced. In practice, this usually means that the local authority itself undertakes mosquito control. An overview of current practice is in the following section. Within a local government, vector control (which includes ro­dents) is usually the responsibility of the Environmental Health Officer, formerly with a Diploma in Environ­mental Health and now usually a graduate in that area. The degree in Environmental Health does not usually include Town Planning ex­pertise, however.

Summer 1998 31

32 Summer 1998 Wing Beats

Current Practice

Current mosquito managementpractice aims primarily to reducemosquito breeding by active inter-vention. This usually means larvi-ciding or modifying breeding habi-tats to render them unsuitable formosquitoes. Adulticiding is usuallyapplied only as an emergency mea-sure after severe outbreaks.Whichever method is used it is un-der the control of a health-relateddepartment of local governmentand not of a planning department.

Larvicides used includetemephos, Bacillus thuringiensisvar. israelensis, and methoprene.Habitat modification is used mainlyto control saltmarsh mosquitoes;draining is not environmentally ac-ceptable. Runnelling (often calledrotary ditching in the United States)and Open Marsh Water Manage-ment (OMWM) maintain marshfunction while reducing mosquitobreeding in intertidal areas by con-necting isolated breeding depres-sions and ponds to the tidal source.These modifications also allowpredators access to breeding sites.Impoundments are a seldom-usedalternative because they may haverelatively severe environmental im-pacts.

Stocking ponds with predatoryfish has not proved successful inAustralia. Indeed, the introductionof the non-native mosquitofish,Gambusia affinis, in Australia notonly proved ineffective for mosquitocontrol but had severe conse-quences for the native fish fauna.

Problems of MosquitoManagement inExpanding Urban Areas

As human populations grow itis important that decisions aboutsettlement design and location areinformed on public health relatedissues such as mosquito breeding.There are two reasons for epidem-ics of Ross River disease. One isthat the area of endemic RR dis-

ease expands, possibly due to lo-cal weather in a particular year. Thistype of outbreak is likely to remainone that requires active interven-tion by vector control units as de-scribed above. The second reasonfor epidemics is that non-immunehuman populations may move intoareas where RR disease is en-demic. This is a situation whichought to be avoidable by manag-ing land use, and is clearly outsidethe power of a vector control unit,but well within power of a PlanningDepartment. Thus, to minimize dis-ease and discomfort it is necessaryto direct actions toward not onlycontrol of the pest, but also of hu-man activities. The following discus-sion focuses on the major issues re-lating to organization at local govern-ment level, pressure of developmenton land, land uses which exacerbatemosquito breeding, land uses andusers sensitive to mosquito controlmeasures and issues of accessibil-ity, both physical and political to natu-ral areas for treatment.

Organizational Issues

The location of mosquito man-agement within local government incoastal Queensland is often as ad-ministratively and physically sepa-rate vector control units. In the ad-ministrative hierarchy of councils,these units are usually linked topublic health or works departments,but not to town planning or conser-vation. As mosquito control officershave to handle large volumes ofpotentially hazardous pesticidesand have ready access to equip-ment, vector control units are usu-ally also physically separated fromother council administration depart-ments, reducing chances for infor-mal contacts. As a consequence ofthis organisational structure, thereis generally little awareness of mos-quito control issues in other depart-ments, and vector control staff areusually not involved in any townplanning or zoning decision whichaffect mosquito management is-sues. Thus mosquito managementin most local governments of south

east Queensland is generally reac-tive rather than proactive. The fol-lowing paragraphs illustrate someof the issues which are particularlyrelevant to planning.

Residential Developments InRR Disease Endemic Areas

Southeast Queensland is oneof the fastest growing regions inAustralia. It has high rates of mi-gration, presumably of many non-immune people from southern partsof Australia, for permanent settle-ment or as visitors. New residentialdevelopment takes place primarilyin former agricultural land close tothe coast. In these areas or nearbythere are many remnants of natu-ral bushland, freshwater swamps,saltmarshes and mangrove forests(and mosquitoes). Even if theseopen spaces can be preserved,they may be indirectly affected byurbanization. New residential areasare quite often up-market estates,where buyers expect a high-qual-ity lifestyle without being hassled bymosquitoes or threatened by dis-ease. For vector control, new com-plaints arising from the develop-ments can strain resources andlead to increased costs of control.In contrast, the traditional ruralpopulation is much more used toliving with mosquitoes and com-plains less frequently. As well, es-tablished populations probablyhave high levels of immunity to RRdisease and so disease risk is rela-tively low. As land developers andreal estate agents do not want tolose clientele, they too may imposepolitical pressure on local govern-ments to increase mosquito controlin natural areas close to the newdevelopments.

Exacerbating Land Uses

In the urbanizing context, de-sign of residential areas can havea significant effect on mosquitobreeding. Clearly, draining and fill-ing activities destroy wetland func-

Wing Beats 33Summer 1998

tion and remove mosquito breed-ing. On the other hand, poor de-sign of water retention basins andartificial lakes etc. has the poten-tial to introduce or increase mos-quitoes. Water quality too is a sig-nificant factor in mosquito breed-ing with Cx. annulirostris toleratingenriched (polluted) water. Thesefactors should be taken into ac-count at the planning and designstage to minimize adverse healthrisks.

Primary production near urbanareas can also influence arbovirusdisease risk. For example, grazingland in tidally-influenced areas ofsoutheast Queensland can have asignificant impact on mosquitobreeding, in particular when therehas been some drainage work andthese drains are not maintainedregularly; even hoofprints can serveas significant temporary breedingsites. As they are ephemeral struc-tures, monitoring is very time-con-suming and treatment difficult.

In other parts of Australia, floodirrigation practices cause intensivemosquito breeding, in particular ofcertain Aedes, with all the associ-ated arbovirus risks.

Sensitive Land-uses AndUsers

There may be land uses whichwill be adversely affected by pesti-cides, resulting in economic loss tothe user. An example is prawn farm-ing, which is a growing industry insoutheast Queensland. Prawnfarms are usually located along thecoastline or near tidally-influencedrivers. These areas also requiremosquito management, in particu-lar with regard to saltmarsh mos-quitoes. As prawns are extremelysensitive to some of the pesticidesused in mosquito control, the es-tablishment of new prawn farmscan have heavy impacts on mos-quito management, causing theneed for a change to more expen-sive products or to move from

spraying to habitat modification.Again, mosquito management unitsare rarely involved in decisionsabout locating such developments.

As well, there is concern thatcertain “chemically sensitive” indi-viduals will suffer health problemsas result of spraying. This is an is-sue overseas where registers ofsuch people are maintained. InBrisbane, known sensitive peopleare informed prior to spraying but,with a small window of opportunityfor spraying, this may be difficult toachieve.

Issues of Accessibility

Conventional mosquito controlby spraying from the ground relieson physical accessibility. Even ifaerial treatment is carried outground survey is essential for preand post treatment assessment.During the peak breeding seasonin summer, potential sites have tobe checked and treated in intervalsof no more than five days. This isonly feasible if these sites can beaccessed by some motorized ve-hicle, such as all-terrain motorbikes.Residential developments close tonatural mosquito breeding sites cantherefore also result in increasedneeds to build access roads.

Many mosquito breeding sitesin coastal areas are linked to man-grove forests, where vehicular ac-cess can be practically impossible;in these cases major modificationsof the landscape may be necessaryto ensure acceptable levels of mos-quitoes in adjacent residential ar-eas. This may be unacceptable toother authorities such as the De-partment of Primary Industries(Fisheries) and Department of Envi-ronment. Further, if an area is pro-tected under the Nature Conserva-tion Act (1992), then accessibilityis constrained, certainly as far astreating is concerned and possiblyeven for ground survey since thismay be damaging to sensitiveenvironments.

Framework forIntegrating Planning andVector Control

If mosquito management is tobe seen as more than just a treat-ment of problem areas, with all thepotential of serious impacts on theenvironment, it is necessary to de-velop a strategic framework for theintegration of mosquito manage-ment into decision making whichsteers the processes affecting landuses. The objectives at the localgovernment level would be to:

1. Secure a long-term per-spective for public health andquality of life.

2. Prioritize preventionmeasures over treatmentmeasures.

3. Promote public aware-ness of mosquito manage-ment issues.

4. Improve the formal andinformal communication be-tween vector control unitsand other local authorityunits.

5. Minimize impacts onnatural and anthropogenicecosystems.

The implementation of theseobjectives will vary between localgovernment areas. Neverthelesssome general features should beregarded as essential in the devel-opment of a strategy.

Integration of MosquitoManagement and Planning

The most important aspect ofintegrated mosquito managementis the integration of vector controlactivities with urban planning at thelocal government level. Urban plan-ning is where most of the decisionsfor future developments of an areaare made and where mosquitomanagement issues have to beconsidered equally with other pub-lic interests such as the regionaleconomy, tourism and conservation.

This integration has to be car­ried out both on a formal and on an informal level. Formally, mosquito management experts should be in­volved in all relevant town planning projects (zoning plans, local area plans, development control plans, strategic plans, etc. ) as well as in individual development approval processes. As an example, Tweed Shire Council, in 1993, produced a development control plan focusing on biting midge and mosquito is­sues.

For mosquito control officers to understand their new role in plan­ning, additional training would gen­erally be needed. Depending on the actual situation, this formal integra­tion could also be achieved by a different allocation of mosquito con­trol within the administration of lo­cal government. On the other hand, there is also a need for better in­formal contacts between vector control unit staff and staff from other units due to the usual physi­cal separation described above.

Integration of Mosquito Management into Urban Open Space Planning

Some goals of urban open space planning can conflict with in­tegrated mosquito management. In order to avoid these conflicts, co­operation at an early stage is es­sential, for example in preparing wetland management or bushland conservation strategies, in which the aim is to protect both conser­vation values and human health.

As an example, traditional open space planning aims at linking natu­ral areas to urban ecosystems via corridors. These corridors are quite often formed by rivers and creeks or by dense vegetation. Although very little is known about the func­tion of these corridors for the mi­gration of mosquitoes from breed­ing sites into urban areas, some au­thors recommend breaking up con­tinuous vegetation corridors in or-

34 Summer 1998

der to inhibit this migration. This is an area where more research work would be required to find evidence and possible compromises.

Education

Educational programs play a key role in the promotion of public health issues. In the past decade, awareness of arbovirus risks in the general public has increased, yet there is still a need for educational programs both at schools and in those occupations with special ar­bovirus infection risk, such as con­struction workers, park rangers etc. Mosquito control units or their as­sociated Health departments often provide information to the public, and this should be encouraged.

Regional Cooperation

Mosquitoes do not respect lo­cal government boundaries, there­fore local governments need to co­ordinate their management activi­ties. In some parts of Australia, Contiguous Local Author ities Groups (CLAGs) have been formed to co-operate at a regional scale, which can include joint operation of helicopters , fund ing of research projects and development of infor­mation material. While this coop­eration between various vector con­trol units is usually very success­ful, little integration exists between CLAGs and other regional planning activities, e.g. strategic plans for tourism or residential development.

Integration of Mosquito Management at Different Scale Levels

As demonstrated in the previ­ous paragraphs, issues of mosquito management cannot be solved without coordination with other dis­ciplines. Similarly, there is also a need for integration and coordina­tion between different levels of or­ganization and decision making.

Development decisions at the re­gional level can have severe im­pacts on mosquito management at the local level; on the other hand, the actual risk of infection can be minimized by measures taken at the household level, e.g. provision of mosquito screens. Practical ac­tivit ies of vector control units are usually carried out at the level of subdivisions, however, measures at other scale levels are necessary to compliment these methods and, ideally, to reduce the need for di­rect mosquito control as much as possible. The responsibil ity for these measures can be found at any scale level from the individual person up to the national govern­ment.

r Andreas Muhar is a Lecturer in the School of Environmen­tal Planning e-mail: a.muhar@ens.gu.edu.au and Pat Dale is Lecturer in the School of Australian Environ­mental Studies, Griffith Uni­versity, Queensland. The au­thors thank the Brisbane City Council, Queensland Health and the students from the third year (1997) in the Bachelor of Environmental Planning Program at Griffith University.

\..

\\'L"'re Sales \ 'W.Ut "p!llfeo.~TM"lal , 0' ~ kll. c. tpu ell:1'd 'Iilii ktll oil! ll!K.l ,,,~.,.lu:Jit-1"' liJr \~tarCI!•tiC!niii•IIIW} Y'IJ(;t r;•mnrlrJiil!fl kl'\ll) lw llww wlll'JII roo nCI:l.l ill!

\Vc're Serviot:

\Vc-·re Suppun ., \1W&.IR'~> ~li!Cb :-r~ ill! ilc.r,llnN ltJ pmvidf.! ~ oo ~~Lib II .eii!Jeq

lnt.lil)ll) l111fonrralnrn V i.,.b flc'd'\'r!b tor~~~~ ... , ...)tdr·, 1 MSIDS'~. lr idl!lill} lleW~, arid "'' r.Jthrr ~f'h tru..

tCb •. •mCan: prtt'tdr:. )1111 'J.I.I tb~el!..!~ ill. I'll _.t:JTI<.i~"=""-TJ :.t!f~lli

• Ul11 IlL~ n•rruct 10 k::.Liliftr,; ~·.......,.. m ~~ !t tau: ra::!btJa , ... Ill t:.:lll Cl1llQf 4111 U'l-111 l l;l )1iil ~~ ~

• Btl',. 111 •IJIIIell,ll-tuid. "''rnl. \\ Jr;1hh1 po.m.h.tr. b~~rc .. dtJt:.Li

- ~"' PLI • ll\: • ll:n

· n~Jn • Ntu.mal M,t~rdn

We~re 'VW&R.

• k'-''111t'lltJ iP i lJiitr•..lfl j

Call Your l.J:x'.W VW&R Office AL.

1WR ;l Van Waters u Rogers Inc.

~L?'h< 11',/Joll Jh m .lu ' l Oiflri#•M•f

Can't quite fit all t e pieces together?

'ti ou re nat aJ e lJ tillS na • r bren

fmd Clm' m 1rq: pJctts

t\Jm lv Vet lvl ~--~ n"C"n Jn rou.ttl• i.Ctl1dllloru, frJ• rHMUdl (nmrol \.h tt)l 1 ~ nmlmlr klro,".ie I• n• tip It)

no Wt'1 • WI! d1 mt..·.tn. h·wcr appLh ... ILI'-JrU ••lld In• ttt

r lll'lDIIIH II I' 1Ulrl I lle gr.liHil.ar IO(fllJIItUillll It, (!111.11'11

•p 'lir'LI hy ll 11\'' nHoi'\Jl ~tound ssr atr s'qlllr'l'i1r'1sl The t.ll \ I IIBJ t.'dl 1 I I .I niJillllJ I~ f•t::-n.tmng II I'.! ~ I UJ11

• wilh vmtJi..o.

~CDillrDI

til A 1'YVJLw. no pamure re5tnL

tl!.Jn ond no restncte\1 ran~ hdp ·.NVIt srt

a new wnd.' rlm ath1 I coou r ~rn.J.::kdown and

t-~lrt-mot~ly low t.._t:t; i•v rui ANV II way nhr'~d of lhe p.td

Wllc.tlto::t yuu "' l'd hL"SI• ~~~ lhllJ.I U 1 11ghr pr.1duc1.s,

rqLnptnt:nl I •I .tpplll .)[Hlll U rlf\~ We t.:DII help }'O'U r11)

l ht• PII:'CI:!S lo •t'J I\l'l l••r I tfl.'t.:l Ill ru.v I.J.Ut'SU11fl'i.7

V.'L• ~here l~• htlp J-80 0 - 3 23 - 572 1

Clar e .. osq ito Control P o ucts, Inc. 15 n verwe • ~ . IL 60172