4.2 Article

The Phlebotomine sand fly fauna of Switzerland revisited

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mve.12690

关键词

abundance; first record; mascittii; minuta; neglectus; perniciosus; Phlebotomus; presence; Sergentomyia; trapping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A investigation of sand flies in Switzerland revealed changes in species composition, altitude distribution, abundance, and seasonality. The study identified four species, including the first report of Phlebotomus neglectus in Switzerland. The low density of sand flies suggests a low risk of canine leishmaniosis in Switzerland.
Sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae, Phlebotominae; Newstead, 1911) are widespread in Europe, being particularly common in the Mediterranean region but rare north of the Alps. Thus, Switzerland is an opportune place to investigate the sand fly fauna on both sides of the Alpine crest, in southern sub-Mediterranean climate and northern oceanic temperate climate. We reinvestigated the Swiss sand fly fauna with the aim to assess changes in composition, altitudinal distribution, abundance and seasonality. Thirty-eight sites were investigated with light traps and/or interception sticky traps in 4 years. Ninety and 380 specimens were caught by light traps and sticky traps, respectively, at 15 collecting sites. Four species were identified. Phlebotomus mascittii (Grassi, 1908), Phlebotomus perniciosus (Newstead, 1911) and Sergentomyia minuta (Rondani, 1843) were confirmed in Ticino, and P. mascittii for the first time in neighbouring Grisons. Also, Phlebotomus neglectus (Tonnoir, 1921) is for the first time reported, though at a very low density compared to P. perniciosus at the same site. Its presence in Ticino supports the northward spread observed in Italy. Sand flies were detected north of the Alps at one site only, endorsing a historical report. Overall, the low density of P. perniciosus and very low density of P. neglectus suggest that canine leishmaniosis may not be an important disease risk in Switzerland.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据