Tag Archives: entomology

Experiment shows Spartan Mosquito Eradicator do not work

Experiments on Spartan Mosquito Eradicators fail to detect efficacy

According to research conducted in Florida, there’s no evidence that Spartan Mosquito Eradicators kill mosquitoes. Here’s the citation:

Aryaprema, V.S., E. Zeszutko, C. Cunningham, E.I.M. Khater, and R.-D. Xue. 2020. Efficacy of commercial toxic sugar bait station (ATSB) against Aedes albopictus. J. Florida Mosquito Control Association 67: 80-83. PDF

I summarize the two experiments and explore some of the implications, below.

Laboratory experiment

Below is a rough reconstruction of the laboratory experiment they conducted. In each of the cages (BugDorm-2120), 100 male and 100 female tiger mosquitoes (Aedes albopictus) were released, then monitored for mortality at 24, 48, and 72 hours.

Schematic of laboratory experiment based on description in Aryaprema et al. 2020.

Below are the cumulative mortality data for the three cages. Result: the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator filled with the provided packet ingredients (treatment) did not result in higher mortality. I.e., there was no evidence the device killed mosquitoes under laboratory conditions.

Field experiment

The researchers also conducted a field experiment using two sites that had large populations of tiger mosquitoes (because of the presence of tires). At each site they deployed five tubes (separated by 4 m), switching whether the tubes were “treatment” or “control” tubes every 2 weeks. A BG-Sentinel trap (without carbon dioxide) was used to quantify mosquito numbers every week.

Schematic of field experiment based on description in Aryaprema et al. 2020.

Below are the weekly numbers of mosquitoes caught in the BG Sentinel traps. Results: there was no evidence that presence of treatment tubes (filled as per company guidelines) reduced the numbers of mosquitoes at the sites.

Conclusions

Their overall conclusion: “Both laboratory and field components of our study show that the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator is not effective in reducing abundance of Ae. albopictus.” They speculate that the contents do not attract mosquitoes and that the holes on the device (~3 mm) are too small for mosquitoes to easily reach the fluid inside. They also highlight the need for an experiment to evaluate whether the active ingredient (1% sodium chloride) kills adult mosquitoes. I.e., even if mosquitoes were attracted to Spartan Mosquito Eradicators and could easily get inside, the salt might not be lethal. Per unpublished research, a 1% salt solution is, in fact, not lethal to adult mosquitoes.

Implications

The results of the experiments call into question the efficacy claims made by the owners of Spartan Mosquito. For example, the company says on the box that a 95% reduction in mosquitoes will occur within 15 days and will last for three months. The company also prints a graph on the label that indicates almost 99% of mosquitoes are killed by the end of this period.

Spartan Mosquito Eradicator efficacy graph

If the claims are false or misleading, which seems to be the case, states can classify the device as “misbranded” and issue stop-sell orders. Some have already done so.

These findings will also be important for the class-action suit that has been filed against the company and its owners. I.e., because there is now peer-reviewed evidence that the device does not kill mosquitoes, it will be considerably easier to prove to a jury that the company’s efficacy claims are false or misleading.

Finally, the results call into question the efficacy claims of the company’s newest product, the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, which replaces sodium chloride with boric acid. Although a boric acid solution can certainly be lethal if mosquitoes ingest it, the Pro Tech is based on the same design as the Eradicator and thus would not be expected to either attract mosquitoes or to allow them easy access to the fluid inside. The Pro Tech label, however, asserts that the device will attract and kill mosquitoes. It would be great to get a third-party assessment of whether those label claims are true.

Testing the Eradicator and Pro Tech at home

In regards to the question of attractiveness to mosquitoes, consumers can easily assess that at home with a zoom-equipped camera, binoculars, or a security camera. The idea is to be able to see mosquitoes near the cap (if they are there) but to be far enough away so as not to distract the mosquitoes. Ideally, capture a photograph or movie and get confirmation of what insects are actually gathering around the device (again, if any).

Per the above paper, you likely won’t see mosquitoes gathering around the devices. Per the company, mosquitoes will gather around the devices.

People can also assess whether mosquitoes are entering the devices by dumping the contents onto a white plate and taking a photograph. Ideally, share your photographs on Spartan Mosquito’s Facebook page — they’d love to see them. Or post on them on Twitter and cc me (@colinpurrington).

Photographs from Ridley Creek State Park

Last week when I was at Ridley Creek State Park I crossed paths with a tree tour led by wildlife biologist Gary Stolz (PA Dept of Conservation and Natural Resources). I promised the group that I’d post photographs of things I’d seen at the park. Here are the highlights:

Long-tailed giant ichneumon wasp

Long-tailed giant ichneumonid wasp (Megarhyssa macrurus)
Megarhyssa macrurus

The largest and most colorful was clearly the long-tailed giant ichneumon wasp (Megarhyssa macrurus) that I found ovipositing into a red maple. Actually, there were perhaps a half-dozen of them, all presumably targeting the larvae of Tremex columba (a sawfly) that were busy eating the tree. The presence of the sawflies is given away from probably a mile away (I’m guessing here) due to the odor of the symbiotic fungus they use to help digest the wood. Once on the tree, though, the ichneumon probably locates a larva by sensing the vibrations it makes when chewing. The ovipositor is approximately 2″ long and is tipped with a cutting edge (as you might guess). It also drips out a fluid that helps dissolve the wood. An amazing insect to watch.

Green’s giant ichneumon wasp

(Green's giant ichneumonid wasp) Megarhyssa greenei
Megarhyssa greenei

Also on the same tree were several Green’s giant ichneumon wasps (Megarhyssa greenei). This species has a shorter ovipositor (among several other differences) but does pretty much the same thing as the species above.

Unknown wasp in Tribe Ephialtini

Ovipositing wasp in Tribe Ephialtini.

Also beautiful but much smaller (perhaps 12 mm), I found this wasp ovipositing into a nearby tree that was completely dead and covered with moss. I’m still working on an ID (it’s something in the Ephialtini). Which means, like many of the insects I photograph, I’m hoping that an expert will eventually help me identify it. Sometimes that process can years but I’ll update this page if there’s any movement. For those curious, I post photographs to iNaturalist and BugGuide for help. And I often ask my Dad (Foster Forbes Purrington), an entomologist.

Coelichneumon navus

Coelichneumon navus (female)
Coelichneumon navus

The last wasp of the day is Coelichneumon navus, another ichneumonid but with a concealed ovipositor. This species has been known to parasitize fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea) and cypress looper moth (Iridopsis pergracilis), but like many of the 100,000 or so members of the family Ichneumonidae not much is known about its natural history. I found two caterpillars on this tree but haven’t yet ID’d them.

Gnophomyia tristissima

Gnophomyia tristissima
Gnophomyia tristissima

Another insect with no common name, Gnophomyia tristissima live, love, and die around rotting hardwood logs. These are crane flies and can be identified by their bright yellow halteres (remnants of their second pair of wings) and black bodies. This photograph shows mating but afterwards the male seems to guard the female while she oviposits (if you want to see that, click on image to be taken to a site that has additional photographs). I spent about 30 minutes watching and photographing them and could have stayed longer. But the mosquitoes were exsanguinating me.

American nursery web spider

American nursery web spider (Pisaurina mira)
Pisaurina mira

Earlier on my walk I found a rather orange American nursery web spider (Pisaurina mira). It was also rather large.

Banded fishing spider?

Juvenile banded fishing spider (Dolomedes vittatus)
Dolomedes vittatus?

I can usually narrow down spiders given their eye arrangement and details of web (or lack thereof), but this is stumping me. My tentative guess is that it’s a freshly-molted (teneral), juvenile banded fishing spider (Dolomedes vittatus). I’m trying to get this confirmed so check back if you’re curious. Astute readers will notice that it’s on a tree, not near water, but apparently there are few members of Dolomedes that can live away from water just fine. This is one of those species.

Northern water snake

Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)
Nerodia sipedon

This was the first time I’ve seen a northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) but apparently they are super common. This one was perhaps 2 feet long but they get as big as 4 1/2 feet. Non-venomous, though, in case you were wondering.

Sulphur tufts?

Sulphur tufts (Hypholoma fasciculare) on log
Hypholoma fasciculare?

I’m still working on an identification but my current guess is sulphur tufts (Hypholoma fasciculare). Or, if you prefer, sulfur tufts. I really enjoy photographing young mushrooms but the consequence is that they are harder to identify.

That’s it! If you have any questions, send me a note or leave a comment.

End band net-wing beetle (Calopteron terminale)

Identifying End band net-wing (Calopteron terminale)

This week I finally decided to teach myself how to identify Calopteron terminale (end band net-wing beetle), and the characteristics aren’t as bad as I thought. I made a visual to help in case others might find it useful:

The easiest diagnostic feature is the transverse depression (dip), shown with a red line in photograph above. I think when I first noticed this depression in the wild I foolishly assumed it was a deformation that certain beetles got from being wedged into a pupal cases that were a tad too small for their bellies. But no, it’s a real, unique thing for this species. And no, I have know idea why they have it.

Below is another of my C. terminale photographs. In this one you can see that there’s a second, slight depression just anterior to the transverse band. For this reason many keys refer to an “undulation” along elytra rather than just a single depression. Here is one on Instagram that really shows the undulation. But sometimes the anterior one is hard to see.

Even the distal depression is sometimes hard to see with dorsal photographs, so in those cases use the uniformity in discal costae (ridge, vein) heights to make the ID. Excluding the edge vein there are four (4) ridges that are elevated to the same amount. Both C. reticulatum and C. discrepans (the other two members of the genus in the United States) have alternating ridge heights. The ridges are filled with poisonous hemolymph, by the way, so don’t poke them.

In addition to the above diagnostic features, many keys say that C. terminale has a “distinct blue tinge”. Other species in the genus sometimes have a blue tinge but I’ve only noticed a distinct blue tinge on C. terminale.

For more information on identification, here are links to C. terminaleC. reticulatum and C. discrepans on BugGuide. If you’re on iNaturalist, here they are again: C. terminaleC. reticulatum and C. discrepansThere are many more (100+) species in the genus, and most of them are in South America, Central America, and Mexico. I’m not aware of a current guide to these other species but here’s an 1886 one for Central America.

If you encounter a mating pile of any of these insects, please take a lot of photographs and examine the abdomens of females for droplets of hemolymph. There are reports (Burke 1976) that males feed on this hemolymph.

For more natural history, start with these publications:

Burke, H.R. 1976. Observations on the adult behavior of the Lycid beetle Calopteron terminale (Coleoptera: Lycidae). Entomological News 87:229-232.

McCabe, T.L., and L.M. Johnson. 1979. Larva of Calopteron terminale (Say) with additional notes on adult behavior (Coleoptera: Lycidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 87:283-288.