Tag Archives: Florida

Spartan Mosquito Eradicator

Scientists conclude Spartan Mosquito Eradicators don’t work

4 Replies

Research conducted in Florida found no evidence that Spartan Mosquito Eradicatiors are effective mosquito-control devices. Below is my reconstruction of the two experiments they conducted. One was in the laboratory, one was outside.

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.

Here is a photograph of one of the choice cages:

Below are the cumulative mortality data for the three cages. 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

The scientists concluded that “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.

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

Update: the salt experiment has been conducted. And the result is that salt does not kill mosquitoes.

All of these results are no surprise to anyone. Please see my 2019 review of the Spartan Mosquito Eradicator for details. I also reviewed the Spartan Mosquito Pro Tech, the company’s newest tube. It is just as effective. I.e., they are equally ineffective.

Oak leaf-rolling weevil (Homoeolabus analis)

7 Replies

If you’ve been to Florida and stared at any of the live oaks there, you’ve probably noticed the tiny, burrito-shaped structures on many of these leaves. If you haven’t seen them, you might have heard them — they accumulate under oak trees in sufficient numbers that you’ll hear crunching as you walk over them.

These structures are made by the oak leaf-rolling weevils in the subfamily Attelabinae (the “leaf rolling weevils”, appropriately) and they are called nidi (Latin for “nest” or “place where egg is placed”). Several species nidify (yes, it’s a verb) oak but perhaps the most common species is Homoeolabus analis. I caught a female in the act:

Zolfo Springs, FL.

This shows her fairly well along in the process but I really wish I could show you a video of her technique, which is amazing. Before this stage she’ll first survey the leaf compulsively, scissor the leaf in half at the midrib, then use mandibles and legs to feverishly roll it into a burrito. Midway through the nidification she’ll deposit an egg (sometimes two) and then, I gather, will guard the nidus from parasitic wasps while it hardens up a bit. She’s also guarding against intrusion by the the thief weevil (Pterocolus ovatus), a blueberry-like attelabid that sneaks into fresh nidi and eats the eggs. But that’s not all. Female thief weevils will leave their own egg inside the nidus and this theft of home is the source of their common name.

Here’s a male, by the way (you can tell because he has a longer neck):

On that note, here’s an egg I found inside one of the nidi. I think it’s Homoeolabus analis but it could be Pterocolus ovatus.

I opened up several dozen of these nidi and found all sorts of drama. Several had some sort of orange cecidomyiid larvae (more pics) in the middle layers of the nidi:

And found plenty of eggs that were definitely not weevil eggs but that are not photogenic enough to post. Suffice it to say that there are many parasitic wasps that have been known to attack this species. If I lived in Florida I’d have hundreds of these in vials just so I could watch the emergers. Better than television.

As a side note, if you have a beetle that looks like Homoeolabus analis, it easily could be Synolabus nigripes, a member of the Attelabinae that also has red, punctate elytra and pronotum; black legs with swollen femora; and long rostrum that is largely though variably black. And ranges overlap (see maps here and here). Below are some ways to tell them apart that I collected from a variety of sources. Many involve knowing which sex an individual is, but luckily males have longer necks. And if an individual is caught nidifying a leaf, it’s a female.

Homoeolabus analis

  • sides of neck parallel, not wider near pronotum (from Boris Büche)
  • males: distance between pronotum and eyes equal to length of rostrum (example)
  • males: pair of spines/projections on the submentum (p. 175 in The Insects and Arachnids of Canada; p. 707 in American Beetles); need a microscope
  • females: straight tibiae (see 2nd pic near top of this post)
  • on, eating, or nidifying Quercus spp.
  • black parts have a blue tinge (see above pic) (LeConte 1876, page 10); this characteristic seems ignored in all later descriptions … but I think it should be featured

Synolabus nigripes

  • width of neck behind eyes greater than width at tip of neck (from Boris Büche)
  • males: distance between pronotum and eyes less than length of rostrum (to me, they evoke the Spy vs Spy comic book characters from Mad Magazine)
  • males: large spine(s) on front femora (example)
  • females: “ventral rostral apex in lateral view with median conical prominence” (American Beetles, p. 707); need a microscope
  • on, eating, or nidifying Rhus spp.; usually sumac, sometimes poison ivy
  • no bluish tinge on black parts (Evans p. 464)

If you still need help IDing, submit a photograph to either iNaturalist (I’m @colinpurrington if you want to tag me in your observation) or BugGuide. Here are Homoeolabus analis observations on iNaturalist.

If you want more information on Homoeolabus analis or the parasites that attack it, here’s a great overview by Donald W. Hall and Lyle J. Buss (both at the University of Florida). And here’s a post by Charley Eiseman with pics and natural history of yet another (but not all-red) oak leaf-rolling weevil, Attelabus bipustulatus. If you want to see some nidifying, there are YouTube videos of various Attelabidae.