不同干预措施对居民小区白纹伊蚊防制效果和经济成本比较研究

Effect and economic cost of different intervention measures in Aedes albopictus control in residential areas:A comparative analysis

目的比较不同干预措施对居民小区白纹伊蚊密度的控制效果,为日常白纹伊蚊防控提供参考。方法2019年4-12月在广州市选择某居民区作为实验地,该居民区由4个相对独立的小区组成。4个小区被随机设置为对照(A)、人工孳生地处理(B)、孳生地弥雾机喷洒苏云金芽孢杆菌处理(C)和超低容量喷洒菊酯类杀虫剂灭成蚊处理(D)4个组。其中对照组仅开展监测,不做其他处理。从4月11日起采用容器指数(CI)法和诱蚊诱卵器法每2周开展1次白纹伊蚊密度监测,5月23日开始首次处理,此后每2周用不同方法进行处理,记录每次处理面积、出动人员数量、花费时间、药物费用等。用CI和诱蚊诱卵指数(MOI)表示蚊密度,采用方差分析比较不同干预措施的防制效果。结果开始处理前,4个组之间CI、MOI差异均无统计学意义(F=0.114,P=0.948;F=0.005,P=0.999)。第1次处理14 d后不同组间CI、MOI差异均有统计学意义(F=602.371,P<0.001;F=57.619,P=0.001)。B组处理14 d后CI迅速从94.29%下降到3.70%,并维持在较低水平(CI≤3.70%);D组处理14 d后MOI由处理前的高度风险(23.00)降低为中度风险(16.00)水平。租用器械处理1次B、C和D组的成本分别为0.91、2.80和0.93元/hm2。3种干预措施将CI降至低风险所需的经济成本不同,最低为B组0.91元/hm2,将MOI降低至低风险所需经济成本不同,最低为D组1.86元/hm2。结论居民小区日常控制白纹伊蚊密度,应以B组的处理方式为主,C组为辅,经济、环保、高效地控制白纹伊蚊密度。

Objective To investigate the control effect of different intervention measures on the density of Aedes albopictus in residential areas,and to provide a reference for usual control of Ae.albopictus.Methods From April to December 2019,a residential area in Guangzhou,China,was selected as the test site,which consisted of four relatively independent and homogeneous residential communities.The four communities were randomly set as control group(A),artificial breeding ground treatment group(B),group treated by Bacillus thuringiensis with mist spraying at breeding sites(C),and group treated by ultra-low volume spraying of pyrethroid insecticides to kill adult mosquitoes(D).Only mosquito monitoring were performed in the control group.Since April 11,the container index(CI)method and the mosq-ovitrap method were used to monitor the density of Ae.albopictus once every two weeks.The first treatment was conducted on May 23,and then different treatment methods were used every two weeks.The area of each treatment,the number of persons dispatched,the time spent on treatment,and the costs of insecticides were record everytime.CI and mosq-ovitrap index(MOI)were calculated,and an analysis of variance was used to compare the control effect of different intervention measures.Results Before treatment,there were no statistically significant differences between the four groups in CI(F=0.114,P=0.948)and MOI(F=0.005,P=0.999).After the first treatment for 14 days,there were statistically significant differences between the four groups in CI(F=602.371,P<0.001)and MOI(F=57.619,P=0.001).After treatment for 14 days,CI of the B group decreased rapidly from 94.29%to 3.70%and then maintained at a relatively low level(CI≤3.70%),and in the D group,MOI decreased from high risk(23.00)to moderate risk(16.00).The cost of renting equipment for one treatment in the B,C,and D groups was 0.91,2.80,and 0.93 yuan/hm2,respectively.There was a difference in the economic cost required by the three intervention measures to reduce CI to low risk,with the lowest cost of 0.91 yuan/hm2 for the B group,and there was also a difference in the economic cost required to reduce MOI to low risk,with the lowest cost of 1.86 yuan/hm2 for the D group.Conclusion B group supplemented by C group can be used as the main measure for usual control of Ae.albopictus density in residential areas,so as to control the density of Ae.albopictus in an economic,environmentally friendly,and efficient manner.