# F L ORI DA

M OS QUI T O CON T ROL

2009

The s t a t e o f

t he m i s s i o n a s de f

i ne d by m osq u i to con tr ol l er s, re gu l ators, an d en vi ron m en tal m an ag er s



## F l ori da C oordi nati ng C oun ci l on M os qu i t o C ontr olThis report wa s funded in part by a g rant fr om the Florida

Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s, FDA CS #012902, Universityof F lorida Project #00068572. The report was initiated, revie wed, and approve d by the Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito C ontrol (FCCMC). The F CCMC was c reated and mandated by the L eg islature in Chapter 388 F lorida Statues in 1986 to develop and implement g uidelines to assist the Florida Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s (FD ACS) in resolving disputes arising over the control of a rthropods on publicly

owned lands, to identify

and re c omm e ndre se arc h p ri oriti e s a ndte c hn olo g ie s, to d e ve lop a ndre c omm e ndto F DA CS a reque st for proposa l proce ss for arthropod control re sear ch, to identify potential funding so ur c e s f or re se arc h and

imp le me ntatio n p ro

je c ts, a ndto e va luate a ndrank pr op os a ls up on re qu e st b y

thefu nd ing so ur c e . Afi na l mand a te is t o p re pa rea ndpr e se nt r e po rt s, su c h a s th is o ne , o n a

rthr op odc on tr ol a c tiv iti e s inthestate to a pp ro priatea g e nc ie s. To overse e the de velopment of the r eport, the F CCMC appointed a Stee ring Commi ttee that selec ted contributors a nd revie wer s for this publication. Th is p ub lic a tio n is a

pu bli c do c ume nt that c a n b e us e d f or e du c a tio na l pu rp os e s. The fr ont and bac k cover (cy press we tlands) ar e the c opyrig ht of J ames M. Ne wman, the inset is the copy

rig ht of Alan Curtis, and all rig hts are r eserved. Acknowle dg ments: The editorial a ssistance of Janice B roda is much a pprec iated. Special thanks to James M. Newman and Alan Curtis for g ener ously donating the color transpar encie s used for the cover . Pr int e d c op ie s a

rea vaila blefr om: Dr . Ro xan ne Con ne lly

Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory University

of F lorida/IFAS 20 0 - 9 Str e e t SE

th Ver o Be ach, F lorida 32962 Telephone : 772-778-7200 Fax : 772-778-7205 The doc ument can bedownloaded f rom the F lorida Medical Entomology L aboratory

web pa g e : http:// fmel.ifas.uf

l.edu or http:// mosquito.i fas.uf l.edu URL ’s re fer ence d in this document may not remain va lid over time. When refe renc ing this docume nt use: Connelly , C.R. and D.B. Carlson (Eds.). 2009. F lorida Coordinating Council on Mosquito C ontrol. Florida Mosquito Control: The state of the mission as defined by mo sq uito c on tro lle rs, re gu lator s, an d e nv iro nm e nta l m an ag e rs . V e ro B e a c h, F L : University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es, F lorida Medical E n t o m o l o g y L ab o r a t o ry. Printed in 2009

## Ta b le of

Co n ten ts F lorida Coordinatin g Council on Mosquito Control

. ......................... 1 1 White P aper Stee ring Com m ittee

. ......................................... 1 3 Contributors

. .......................................................... 1 4 P reface

. .............................................................. 1 8 Cha pter 1: Introduction

. ................................................ 1 9 1
. 1 P u rp o s e o f

t h i s D o c u m e n t
. ......................................... 1 9 1
. 2 M i s s i o n S t a t e m e n t
. ............................................... 1 9 1
. 3 B r i e f In tr o d u c t i o n t o M o s q u i t o B i o l o g y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 1. 4 I nte g rate d Pe st M a na g e me nt a s it Ap pli e s to Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol.
. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 Cha pter 2: History of Florida Mosquito Control

. ............................ 2 1 2
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . .................................................... 2 1 2
. 2 S t a t e I n v o l v e m e n t
. ................................................ 2 2 2
. 3 O r g a n i z e dP r o g r a m s . .............................................. 2 2 2
. 4 R e s e ar c h
. ....................................................... 2 3 2
. 5 T r a i n i n g a n dP r o f

e s s i o n a l i s m . ....................................... 2 5 2.6 I ntera g ency

Conflict and Cooperation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 2
. 7 C o n c l u s i o n . ..................................................... 2 6 2. 8 A Pu bli sh e d H ist ory

of F lorida Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 2
. 9 R e f e r e n c e . ...................................................... 2 7 Cha pt e r3: Int e gr at e d M os quit o Sur ve ill anc e and E nvi r onm e nt al M oni to r ing

. ... 2 8 3
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . .................................................... 2 8 3. 2 De ve lop ing a n Inte g rate d M os qu ito Surve ill a nc e Pr og ram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 3. 3 De fi nin g Ar e a -s pe c if ic Mo sq uit o Pr ob le ms andCon tr ol S tr a te g ie s. . . . . . . . . . 2 9 3. 4 De sig nin g a

Mo sq uit o Su rv e ill a nc e Pr og ram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 3. 4. 1 Te le ph on e or

Web sit e Se rv ic e Re qu e sts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 3
. 4
. 2 M o n i t o r i n g A d u l tM o s q u i t o e s .................................. 3 1 3
. 4
. 2
. 1 L a n d i n g R a t e s . ....................................... 3 2 3
. 4
. 2
. 2 M e c h a n i c a l T r ap s . ..................................... 3 2 3. 4. 3 Mo nit oring I mmatur e Mo sq uit oe s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 3. 4. 3. 1 I nv e nto ry

of Mo sq uit o D e ve lop me ntal Sit e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 3
. 4
. 3
. 2 S a m p l i n g I m m a t u r e S t a g e s . ............................. 3 5 3
. 4
. 3
. 3 C o l l e c t i n g E g g s . ...................................... 3 5 3.4.3.4 Collecting L arva e and Pupae
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 3. 5 Mo nit oring En vir on me ntal Pa rame te rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 3
. 6 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . .................................... 3 7Chap ter 4: Mosquito Control through Sou rceReduction

. ................. 3 8 4
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . ............................................... 3 9 4.2 Mosquito P roducing Habitats Appropriate for Source Reduc tion.
. . . . . . 3 9 4
. 2
. 1 C o n t a i n e r s . .......................................... 3 9 4. 2. 2 Fre sh wate r L ake s, Pon ds , andRe te nti on Ar e a s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 4. 2. 3 Fre sh wate r S wamps a ndMa rs he s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 4. 2. 4 Te mpo ra

ri ly F loo de d L oc a tio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 4
. 2
. 5 S a l tM ar s h e s . ......................................... 4 0 4. 3 Sou rc e Re du c tio n f or Sa ltm ars h M os qu ito Con tr ol.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 4. 3. 1 De sc ri pti on of

F lorida ' s Sa lt M ars he s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 4. 4 Hi sto ri c a l Me tho ds of Sou rc e Re du c tio n inSa lt M ars h H abit a ts.
. . . . . . 4 1 4
. 4
. 1 D i t c h i n g . ............................................ 4 1 4
. 4
. 2 F i l l i n g . .............................................. 4 2 4
. 4
. 3 I m p o u n d i n g . ......................................... 4 2 4. 5 Cur

re nt S a lt M ars h So ur c e Re du c tio n T e c hn iqu e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 4. 5. 1 En vir on me ntal Co ns ide ratio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 4
. 5
. 2 D i t c h i n g . ............................................ 4 3 4.5.2.1 Be nefits of a

Properly Desig ned Rotary

Ditching Plan.
. . 4 3 4
. 5
. 2
. 2 E n v i ro n m en t al R i s k s o f R o t ar y Di t ch i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4. 5. 2. 3 Rot ary -d itc hin g Ap pli c a tio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4
. 5
. 3 I m p o u n d m e n t s . ....................................... 4 5 4
. 5
. 3
. 1 E n v i ro n m en t al R i s k s o f Imp o u n d i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 4.5.3.2 Be nefits of a

Properly Desig ned Impoundment M a n a g e m e n tP l an . .............................. 4 5 4. 5. 4 Cur

re nt E ff orts i n Sa lt M ars h M a na g e me nt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 4. 6 Sou rc e Re du c tio n inFre sh wate r H abit a ts.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 4. 7 Sto rm wate r andWas te wate r M a na g e me nt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 4
. 7
. 1 C o n c l u s i o n s . ......................................... 5 0 4.8 Mosquitoes Associated with Wastewate r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 4
. 8
. 1 D o m e s t i c W a s t e w a t e r . ................................. 5 1 4
. 8
. 1
. 1 S e p t i c S y s t e m s . ................................. 5 1 4
. 8
. 1
. 2 P a c k a g e P l a n t s . ................................. 5 1 4. 8. 1. 3 L arg e Tr e a tme nt F a c ili tie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 4. 8. 1. 4 Spr a y -i rrig a tio n Sy ste ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 4. 8. 1. 5 Rapid -dry

Pon ds Ve rs us Ho ldi ng Pon ds
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 4
. 8
. 1
. 6 Wa s te w a te r

/a q u ati c Pl a n t S y s te ms .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 4
. 8
. 1
. 7 W e t l a n d s . ..................................... 5 2 4.8.2 Ag ricultural and I ndustrial Wastewater
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 4. 8. 3 Ma

jor Pe st andDi se a se -v e c toring Spe c ie s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 4.8.3.1 Culex
. ........................................ 5 3 4.8.3.2 Aede s and Ps orop ho ra . .......................... 5 4 4.8.3.3 Ma ns on ia and Coq uil le tti dia
. ...................... 5 4 4
. 8
. 4 M o s q u i t o C o n tr o l
. ..................................... 5 4 4
. 8
. 4
. 1 O p e r a t i n g C ap a c i t y .............................. 5 5 4
. 8
. 4
. 2 W a t e r

Q u a l i t y . .................................. 5 5 4
. 8
. 4
. 3 W e t
- d e t e n t i o n P o n d s . ............................ 5 54.8.4.4 Dry -re tention Area s: Rapid-dry Ponds and Spray -irrig ation F i e l d s . .............................................. 5 5 4
. 8
. 4
. 5 W e t l a n d s . ........................................... 5 6 4
. 8
. 4
. 6 L ar v i c i d e s . ........................................... 5 6 4. 9 Aq uatic Pla nt M a na g e me nt andtheEf fe c ts o n M os qu ito Pop ulatio ns . . . . . . . . 5 7 4
. 9
. 1 M o s q u i t o e s . ................................................ 5 7 4
. 9
. 2 A q u a t i c P l a n t s . ............................................. 5 8 4
. 9
. 3 S u r v e i l l a n c e . ............................................... 5 8 4
. 9
. 4 M o s q u i t o C o n tr o l M e a s u r e s . ................................... 5 9 4. 9. 5 Aq uatic Pla nt M a na g e me nt M e a su re s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 4
. 1 0 W a s t e T i r e P r o g r a mi n F l o r i d a . ...................................... 6 0 4
. 1 0
. 1 T i r e s a s M o s q u i t o P r o d u c e r s . .................................. 6 0 4. 10 .2 Was te Ti reDi sp os a l Re g ulatio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 4
. 1 1 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . .................................... 6 2 Cha pt e r5: Lar vic ide s a nd La r vic iding

. ................................... 6 5 5
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . .................................................... 6 5 5
. 1
. 1 H i s t o ry . ................................................... 6 7 5
. 1
. 2 R e g u l a t i o n . ................................................ 6 8 5
. 2 L ar v i c i d e s A v a i l ab l e . .............................................. 7 0 5
. 2
. 1 I n s e c tG r o w t h R e g u l a t o r s . ..................................... 7 1 5
. 2
. 1
. 1 M e t h o p r e n e . ......................................... 7 1 5
. 2
. 2 M i c r o b i a l L ar v i c i d e s . ........................................ 7 2 5.2.2.1 Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is
. ........................ 7 2 5.2.2.2 Bacillus sphaericus
. ................................... 7 3 5
. 2
. 3 O r g a n o p h o s p h a t e s . .......................................... 7 4 5
. 2
. 3
. 1 T e m e p h o s . ........................................... 7 5 5
. 2
. 4 S u r f

a c e O i l s a n dF i l m s . ....................................... 7 5 5
. 2
. 4
. 1 L ar v i c i d i n g O i l s . ...................................... 7 5 5
. 2
. 4
. 2 M o n o m o l e c u l ar

S u r f a c e F i l m s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 5. 2. 5 On -s ite F ormul a tio ns a ndCombin ing L a rv ic ide s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 5.3 Reporting Org anizations and Recent L arvic ide Use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 5
. 4 E q u i p m e n tA v a i l ab l e . ............................................. 7 8 5
. 4
. 1 G r o u n dA p p l i c a t i o n E q u i p m e n t
. ................................ 7 9 5.4.1.1 Advantag es of Gr ound Application.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 5.4.1.2 Disadvanta g es of Gr ound Application.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0 5
. 4
. 2 A e r i a l A p p l i c a t i o n E q u i p m e n t
. ................................. 8 0 5.4.2.1 Selecting L arvic ide Formulations for Aerial A p p l i c a t i o n s . ......................................... 8 1 5. 4. 2. 2 Me a su ri ng a ndPe rf e c tin g Ae ri a l L arv ic ideAp pli c a tio ns . . . . . . . 8 4 5. 4. 2. 3 Ad vanta g e s o f A e ri a l L arv ic ideAp pli c a tio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 5. 4. 2. 4 Di sa dv a nta g e s o f A e ri a l L arv ic ideAp pli c a tio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 5
. 5 C h o o s i n g W h e n t o L ar v i c i d e . ....................................... 8 6 5
. 6 M a n a g i n g L ar v i c i d e R e s i s t a n c e . ..................................... 8 7 5. 7 Un de rs ta nd ing L arv ic ideNo n- targ e t E ff e c ts.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 5
. 8 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . .................................... 8 9Cha pt e r6: Adu lt ic ide s a nd A dultic iding

. .................................. 9 3

6
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . .................................................... 9 3 6
. 1
. 1 S u r v e i l l a n c e a n dT h r e s h o l d s . .................................. 9 4 6
. 1
. 2 T i m i n g . ................................................... 9 5 6
. 1
. 3 C h o o s i n g t h e C h e m i c a l
. ...................................... 9 6 6
. 2 A d u l t i c i d e s U s e di n F l o r i d a . ........................................ 9 6 6.2.1 Org anophosphate s - Gene ral De scription.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 6
. 2
. 1
. 1 M a l a t h i o n . ........................................... 9 7 6
. 2
. 1
. 2 N a l e d
. .............................................. 9 8 6
. 2
. 1
. 3 C h l o rp yr i f

o s . ......................................... 9 9 6.2.2 Pyrethroids – Ge nera l Description.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 6
. 2
. 2
. 1 P yr e t h ru m. ......................................... 100 6
. 2
. 2
. 2 P e r m e t h r i n . ......................................... 100 6
. 2
. 2
. 3 R e s m e t h r i n . ......................................... 101 6
. 2
. 2
. 4 L a mb d a - c yh a l o t h r i n . .................................. 101 6
. 2
. 2
. 5 C y f

l u t h r i n . .......................................... 102 6
. 2
. 2
. 6 B i f

e n t h r i n . .......................................... 102 6
. 2
. 2
. 7 D

- p h e n o t h r i n . ....................................... 103 6
. 3 M e t e o r o l o g y . ................................................... 103 6
. 4 D r o p l e tS i z e . ................................................... 104 6
. 5 G r o u n dA d u l t i c i d i n g . ............................................. 105 6
. 5
. 1 B arr i e r

T r e a t m e n t s . ......................................... 105 6
. 5
. 2 S p a c e S p r a y . .............................................. 106 6
. 5
. 2
. 1 T h e r m a l F o g . ........................................ 106 6
. 5
. 2
. 2 U l tr a

L o w V o l u m e . ................................... 107 6
. 5
. 2
. 3 R i s k s a n dB e n e f

i t s o f T h e r m a l F o g g i n g a n dU LV
.. . . . . . . . . . . 107 6
. 5
. 3 E q u i p m e n t
. ............................................... 108 6
. 5
. 4 T r a i n i n g a n dM a i n t e n a n c e . ................................... 110 6
. 6 A e r i a l A p p l i c a t i o n s . .............................................. 110 6
. 6
. 1 E q u i p m e n t
. ............................................... 114 6
. 6
. 1
. 1 F i x e dW i n g A i r c r a f t
. .................................. 115 6
. 6
. 1
. 2 H e l i c o p t e r s . ......................................... 115 6.6.1.3 I nventory

of Ae rial Adulticiding Aircr aft in F lorida.
. . . . . . . . . 116 6
. 6
. 2 T r a i n i n g a n dR e q u i r e m e n t s . .................................. 116 6.7 Tec hnologic al Improvements, Guidanc e Sy stems, and Docume ntation.
. . . . . 117 6
. 8 D r i f ta n dD e p o s i t i o n M a n a g e m e n t
. .................................. 119 6
. 9 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . ................................... 121 Cha pter 7: Biologi cal and Alternative Contr ol
. ............................ 123 7
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . ................................................... 123 7.2 Deve lopment and Use of Biolog ical Control Ag ents in Florida.
. . . . . . . . . . . 124 7
. 3 A l t e r n a t i v e C o n tr o l T e c h n i q u e s . .................................... 126 7
. 3
. 1 R e m o v a l T r ap p i n g T e c h n i q u e s . ............................... 126 7
. 3
. 2 M e c h a n i c a l T r ap s a n dB u g Z ap p e r s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 7
. 3
. 3 B i o t e c h n o l o g y . ............................................ 127 7
. 3
. 4 S o c i o - c u l t u r a l C h a n g e s . ..................................... 1287
. 4 C o n c l u s i o n s . ................................................... 129 7
. 5 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . ................................... 129 Cha pter 8: Disease Surveillance, Outbreaks, and Con trol in F lorida

. ......... 131 8
. 1 H i s t o ry

o f D i s e a s e O u tb r e ak s . ..................................... 132 8
. 1
. 1 W e s tN i l e F e v e r . ........................................... 132 8
. 1
. 2 S t
. L o u i s E n c e p h a l i t i s . ...................................... 133 8
. 1
. 3 E a s t e r n E q u i n e E n c e p h a l i t i s . ................................. 133 8
. 1
. 4 D e n g u e . .................................................. 134 8
. 1
. 5 Y e l l o w F e v e r . ............................................. 134 8. 1. 6 Ve ne zue la n E qu ineEn c e ph a lit is.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 8
. 1
. 7 M a l ar i a . .................................................. 135 8
. 1
. 8 D o g H e art w o r m ............................................ 135 8. 1. 9 Mo sq uit o A nn oy a nc e a nd Di sc omf ort.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 8. 2 Ec on omi c Cos ts o f S urve ill a nc e , Pr e ve nti on , andCon tr ol.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 8.3 Surveillance for Mosquito-borne Disease in Florida.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 8.4 Org anization of Disease Surveillance in Florida.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 8. 5 Ge ne ral A pp ro a c he s to Surve ill a nc e of En c e ph a lit is.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 8. 6 Ov e rv ie w o f C ur

re nt S urve ill a nc e Me tho ds fo r E nc e ph a lit is.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 8
. 7 C o n tr o l o f

D i s e a s e E p i d e m i c s . ..................................... 143 8
. 8 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . ................................... 144 Cha pt e r9: M os quit o C ont r ol B e ne fit s a nd R isks

. .......................... 145 9
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . ................................................... 145 9
. 2 I n t e g r a t e dP e s tM a n a g e m e n t
. ....................................... 147 9. 3 Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol Ins e c tic ide s: Pa st andPr e se nt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 9
. 4 B e n e f

i t s o f M o s q u i t o C o n tr o l
. ...................................... 150 9
. 4
. 1 N u i s a n c e B e n e f

i t s . ......................................... 150 9
. 4
. 2 E c o n o m i c B e n e f

i t s . ......................................... 151 9
. 4
. 3 P u b l i c H e a l t h B e n e f i t s . ...................................... 152 9
. 5 C o s t s o f

M o s q u i t o C o n tr o l
. ........................................ 152 9
. 5
. 1 H u m a n H e a l t h C o n c e r n s . .................................... 152 9
. 5
. 2 C h e m i c a l T r e s p a s s . ......................................... 154 9.5.3 Potential Problems of Chronic Chemical Exposure..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 9
. 5
. 4 E n v i ro n m en t al C o s t s o f A d u l t i ci d i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9
. 5
. 4
. 1 N o n - t ar g e tIn s e c tM o rt a l i t y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9
. 5
. 4
. 2 I m p a c t s o n I n s e c t i v o r e s . ............................... 157 9
. 5
. 4
. 3 F i s h
. ............................................... 158 9
. 5
. 4
. 4 A q u a t i c C ru s t a c e a . ................................... 158 9
. 5
. 5 E n v i ro n m en t al C o s t s o f Lar v i ci d i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 9
. 5
. 6 A d u l t i c i d i n g v e r s u s L ar v i c i d i n g .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 9
. 6 S o u r c e R e d u c t i o n ................................................ 160 9. 7 Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol o n B iol og ic a lly Pr od uc tiv e State -o wn e d L a nd s. . . . . . . . . . 161 9
. 8 M u t u a l A c c o m m o d a t i o n . .......................................... 161 9
. 9 R e f e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . ................................... 162Cha pt e r10 : I nse c ti c ide Re sis ta nc e M ana ge m e nt
. .......................... 177

1 0
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . ................................................. 177 10 .2 Hi sto ry

of I ns e c tic ideRe sis ta nc e in F lorida Mo sq uit oe s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 1 0
. 3 D e f

i n i t i o n o f R e s i s t a n c e . ........................................ 179 1 0
. 4 R e s i s t a n c e M e c h a n i s m s . ........................................ 179 1 0
. 4
. 1 B e h a v i o r a l R e s i s t a n c e . .................................... 180 1 0
. 4
. 2 M e t ab o l i c R e s i s t a n c e . ..................................... 180 1 0
. 4
. 3 T ar g e tS i t e I n s e n s i t i v i t y . ................................... 180 1 0
. 4
. 4 C r o s s R e s i s t a n c e . ........................................ 181 1 0
. 5 D e t e c t i o n o f

R e s i s t a n c e . ........................................ 181 10.5.1 Median L ethal Conce ntration.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 1 0
. 5
. 2 B i o a s s a y . ............................................... 182 1 0
. 5
. 3 B i o c h e m i c a l T e s t s . ....................................... 182 1 0
. 6 C u rr e n t

R e s e ar c h
. ............................................. 183 10 .7 Str a te g ie s o f R e sis ta nc e Ma na g e me nt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 10 .7 .1 Ma na g e me nt b y

I nte g rate d Pe st M a na g e me nt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 1 0
. 8 R e s i s t a n c e S u r v e i l l a n c e . ........................................ 187 10 .9 State -w ideRe sis ta nc e Ma na g e me nt P ro g ram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 1 0
. 1 0 F u t u r e R e s e ar c h
............................................... 188 1 0
. 1 1 C o n c l u s i o n . .................................................. 188 1 0
. 1 2 R e f

e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d i n g . ................................. 188 Chapte r 11: M osqu ito Control Re searc h
. ................................. 193 1 1
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . .............................................. 194 1 1
. 2 R e s e ar c h O r g a n i z a t i o n s ...................................... 196 1 1
. 2
. 1 F e d e r a l
. ............................................ 196 11 .2 .1 .1 U. S. D e pa

rtme nt o f A g ri c ultur e , Ce nte r f or Me dic a l, A g r i c u l t u r a l , a n dV e t e r i n ary E n t o m o l o g y. . . . . . . . . . 196 11.2.1.2 U.S. Navy

Entomology

Center of Ex cellenc e. . . . . . . 201 1 1
. 2
. 2 S t a t e ............................................... 202 1 1
. 2
. 2
. 1 F l o r i d a

A g r i c u l t u r a l a n dM e c h a n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y, J o h n A. M u l re n n an , S r. P u b l i c H ea l t h E n t o m o l o gy Resear ch and E ducation Center
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 11.2.2.2 Florida

Depa rtment of He alth, Tampa B ranc h L aboratory , Virolog y

Section.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 1 1
. 2
. 2
. 3 F l o r i d a

In s t i t u t e o f

T e c h n o l o g y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 11.2.2.4 University

of F lorida, I nstitut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es, F l o r i d a M e d i c a l E n t o m o l o g y L ab o r a t o ry. . . . . . . . . . 208 11.2.2.5 University

of F lorida, Whitney

L aboratory

for M ar i n e B i o s c i e n c e . ........................... 217 11 .2 .2 .6 Un ive rs ity

of Miami.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 11.2.2.7 University

of North F lorida.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 11.2.2.8 University

of South Florida.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 1 1
. 2
. 3 L o c a l
. .............................................. 2181 1
. 2
. 4 P r i v a t e . ............................................ 221 11.2.4.1 Har

bor B ranc h Oce anog raphic I nstitut ion, I nc.. . . . . . 221 1 1
. 2
. 4
. 2 M o t e M ar i n e L ab o r a t o ry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 11.3 The Ne ed for

Competiti ve Extramural F unding f or F lorida' s Resear ch L abo ratorie s to Sup po rt

Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Chapte r 12: Education, Extension , and O utreac h
. .......................... 224 1 2
. 1 I n tr o d u c t i o n . .............................................. 224 1 2
. 2 E d u c a t i o n . ................................................ 224 12.2.1 Florida

Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s, B ur e au o f E nto mol og y

a nd Pe st C on tr ol.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 12.2.2 Florida

Mosquito C ontrol Association..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 12.2.3 University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural S c i e n c e s , F l o r i d a

M e d i c a l E n t o m o l o g y L ab o r a t o ry. . . . . . . . . . . 227 12.2.4 Florida

Ag riculture and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Public He alth Entomology Resear ch and E d u c a t i o n C e n t e r . .................................... 228 1 2
. 2
. 5 I n d u s try

S h o rtC o u r s e s . ................................ 228 1 2
. 3 E x t e n s i o n . ................................................ 228 12 .4 As sis ta nc e to M os qu ito Con tr ol P ro g rams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 1 2
. 5 O u tr e a c h
. ................................................. 229 Chapte r13 : H ow F lor idaM os quit o C ont r ol i s R e gul at e d 13 .1 Ag e nc y

I nv olv e me nt andEn fo rc e me nt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 13 .1 .1 F lorida

De pa rtme nt o f A g ri c ultur e a ndCon su me r S e rv ic e s. . . . 231 1 3
. 1
. 2 U n i t e dS t a t e s E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y .. . . . . . . . . . . . 232 1 3
. 2 R e g i s tr a t i o n . .............................................. 232 1 3
. 3 A u t h o r i t y . ................................................ 233 13 .4 En fo rc e me nt A c tio ns a ndVi olatio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 13 .5 Sto ra g e a ndHand lin g Re qu ir e me nts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 1 3
. 6 O t h e r

R e g u l a t i o n s a n dI n i t i a t i v e s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 1 3
. 6
. 1 C l e a n A i r

A c t
. ....................................... 236 13.6.2 Comprehensive Envir onmental Response Compensation and Li ab i l i t y A c t
. ........................................ 236 13.6.3 Depa

rtment of Transportation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 1 3
. 6
. 4 R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n a n dR e c o v e ry A c t
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 13.6.5 Reduce d Risk P esticides Initiative.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 1 3
. 6
. 6 P u b l i c L a n d s . ....................................... 237 13 .7 Re c omm e nd a tio ns fo r S tor a g e a ndHand lin g of Pe sti c ide s . . . . . . . . . . 237 1 3
. 8 C e rt i f

i c a t i o n a n dT r a i n i n g . ................................... 238 1 3
. 9 A e r i a l R e g u l a t i o n s . ......................................... 239 13.9.1 Aircr aft Reg istration, Security , and Storag e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241App e ndix I: Ac knowle dgm e nt s a nd A war ds
. .............................. 242

App e nd ix II: Best Managem ent P ractices for Mosquito Control in S torm water

Managem ent F acilities

. .................................... 244 D e s i g n . ............................................ 244 C o n s tru c t i o n . ........................................ 245 M a i n t e n a n c e . ........................................ 246 App e nd ix III: History of Resistance

. ..................................... 247

R e f e r e n c e s . ......................................... 249 App e ndix IV : A c r ony mLis t
. ........................................... 250 Ind ex . ............................................................... 252Fl ori da C oord i nat i ng C ounc i l on M os qui t o C ont rol Page 11 

## Flo rid a C oo rd in at in g C ou n cil on Mosqu ito Control E. John Beidler Private citizen Carina Blackmor e, DVM , P h.D
. State of F lorida Public Hea lth Veterina rian Dana Bryan Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection David Cook Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissi on St e veDwine ll, Cha ir Florida Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s Bur eau of Entomology

and Pest Control Chr istine F or tu in United States Environmental Protec tion Age ncy

Robert F rakes United States Fish and Wildlife Service E d s el M. Fu s s el l , MPH Florida Key s Mosquito C ontrol District P atric ia T. Harden Florida Def ender s of the Environment Wil lia mHowe ll Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection, Division of St ate L ands Boa rd of Tr ustees of the I nterna l I mprovement Tr ust Fund Mark Latham Manate e County

Mosquito C ontrol District Ke n Li nthicum, P h.D
. United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture C en t erfo r M ed i ca l , Agr i cu l t u ra l , an dVe t er i n ar y E n t o m o l o gy Lenore N. M cCullagh, Ph.D. Audubon of F loridaFl ori da C oord i nat i ng C ounc i l on M os qui t o C ont rol Page 12 John A. Mulrennan , Jr., Ph.D. Private Citiz en John P. Sm ith, Ph.D. F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center WalterTabachn ick, P h.D. University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratoryW hi t e Paper St ee ri ng C ommi t t ee Page 13



## WHITE PAPER STEER ING COMMITTEE

Roxanne Connelly, Ph.D., Co-Editor University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory Doug Carlson, Co-Editor I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict

P e te rCo nne lly AM VA C En vir on me ntal Pr od uc ts Larry Hribar, P h.D. Florida Key s Mosquito C ontrol District Ke n Li nthicum, P h.D. United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture C en t erfo r M ed i ca l , Agr i cu l t u ra l , an dVe t er i n ar y E n t o m o l o gy Jack P ete rsen, P h.D. F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation CenterC ont ri but ors Page 14 

## CONTRI BUTORS Dr . A r sha d Al i University

of F lorida Mid-Florida

Resear ch and E ducation Center Dr . J aneBond s F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center Marin Brouillard Colli er Mosquito Control District

Dana Bryan Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection Doug Carlson I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict

Jam es Clauson Florida Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s Bur eau of Entomology

and Pest Control Joe Conlon Americ an Mosquito Control Association Dr . R ox anneCo nne lly University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory P e te rCo nne lly AM VA C En vir on me ntal Pr od uc ts

Al an C ur ti s I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict

Dr . Da v i d Da me Entomologica l Services Dr . J ar e t C . D ani e ls University

of F lorida De p ar t m en to f E n t o m o l o gy an dNe m at o l o gy Dr. Jonathan Day University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratoryC ont ri but ors Page 15 TomF loore F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center Dr. Rober t F rom m er Manate e County

Mosquito C ontrol District Elme r G ray Un ive rs ity

of Ge or g ia De p ar t m en to f E n t o m o l o gy Dr. Larr y Hribar Florida Key s Mosquito C ontrol District Michael Hudon I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict

Ma rk L a th a m Manate e County

Mosquito C ontrol District Dr . K e n Linthic um United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture C en t erfo r M ed i ca l , Agr i cu l t u ra l , an dVe t er i n ar y E n t o m o l o gy F lo Jones Florida Mosquito C ontrol Association Dr . D an L. K line United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture C en t erfo r M ed i ca l , Agr i cu l t u ra l , an dVe t er i n ar y E n t o m o l o gy Dr. Wayne K ram er L ou isi a na State Un ive rs ity De p ar t m en to f E n t o m o l o gy Dr. Sharon Law ler Un ive rs ity

of Ca lif ornia , D a vis Dr. Janet McA llister Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention Dr . R obe r t M ic kle REMSpC Spray

Consulti ng Dennis Moore Pasco County

Mosquito C ontrol DistrictC ont ri but ors Page 16 Dr. John A. Mulrennan, Jr. Florida Coordinating Counc il on Mosquit o Control Dr. G eorgeO’Me ara University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory Bill Opp Florida Mosquito C ontrol Association Dr. Hyun-Woo P ark F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center Dr. Jac k Pe ter sen F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center Dr. Jor ge Re y University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory Ca ndac e Ro ya ls Valent B ioscience s Dr. EricSchreiber Sarasota Mosquito Mana g ement Servic es

Dr. Chelse a Sm artt University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory Dr. John P . Sm ith F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center Dr. Je ff Stivers Colli er Mosquito Control District

G ail St out Manate e County

Mosquito C ontrol District Dr. Walte r Tabachni ck University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratoryC ont ri but ors Page 17 Dr. D. Scot t Taylor Br evar d CountyEnvironmentally Endang ere d L ands Prog ram Dr. WilliamWalton University

of California, River side De p ar t m en to f E n t o m o l o gy Doug Wassm er Pasco County

Mosquito C ontrol District Dr. Dawn Wesson Tu la ne Un ive rs ity

Sc ho ol o f P ub lic He a lth Ge orge Wic hterm an L ee County

Mosquito C ontrol District Neil Wilkin son F lorida Gu lf Coa st U niv e rs ity Dr . R ui- de Xue An a sta sia Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol D ist

ri c tPre f ace Page 18 

## PREFACE 1 EDITION. During the Spring of 1994 at a meeting of the F lorida Coordinating st Council on Mosquit o Control (FCCMC), a leg islatively established intera g ency committee, Carlton L ayne of the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) re quested that the Florida mosquito control communitydevelop a “White Paper” on its control prac tices. Orig inally , it was intended that this document could he lp define the curr ent state of mosquito control in Florida with the g oal of de veloping rec ommendations on how mosquito control chemica l use and risk c ould be re duced in the f uture. This g oal of reduc ed che mical use and risk is a g oal of the EPA’ s Pesticide Environmental Ste wa rd sh ip P ro g ram ( PESP ) o f w hic h th e F lorida Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol A sso c iatio n is a “PESP partner unde r the auspices of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association”. Whil e thi s r e qu e st p ro ba

bly wa s f ir st i nte nd e d a s a

brie f o ve rv ie w o f F lorida ’s mos qu ito control prog rams and pr actice s, it sti mulated g reat interest in the mosquito control community

and “took on a

life of its own” r esulting in the 1 Edition of the Whit e Paper st published by

the Univer sityof F lorida in 1998. 2 EDITION. I n th e Spring of 20 06 , w e sa w that th e inv e nto ry of theWhit e Pape r’ s 1 ND st Edition was running low. Recog nizi ng that some signif icant deve lopments had occ urre d over the past eig ht y ear s, we fe lt that an update wa s in order r ather than simplya re print the document. At the June 2006 FCCMC meeting , the Commit tee authorized the development of

a 2 Edition. As was the ca se for the 1 Edition, a Steering Commi ttee nd st wa s f orme d, a ndCha

pte r C oo rd inator s w e reso lic ite d. Ov e r the ne xt ap pr oximate ly six teen months with the expertise of numer ous individuals, each c hapter was re vised and updated. Therevisions wer e first re viewed by the Steering Commi ttee, and any sig nif ic a nt m od if

ic a tio n r e qu e sts we refo rw ard e d to theCha pte r C oo rd inator s. Ne xt, eac h chapte r wa s peer -re viewed by sever al individuals knowledg eable about the c ha pte r’ s sp e c if

ic top ic . A g a in, a ny

sig nif ic a nt m od if

ic a tio n r e qu e sts we refo rw ard e d to the Chapter Coordinators. I n J anuary 2008 the entire document wa s provided to the FC C M C fo r t h ei r r ev i ew , an di twa s ad o p t ed att h ei r F eb ru ar y 2 0 0 8 m ee t i n g. AP P RECIATION. Th e Ste e ri ng Com mitte e wo uldlik e to thank a ll the pa rtic ipants in this report. While it has not been ea sy to achievea conse nsus on the wording of some of the cha pters, compr omises weremade, r esulting in what we believeis a fair , acc urate , and important look at mosquito control in Florida in the f irst deca de of the 21 Century
. st C. Rox anne Conne lly

and Doug las B. Ca

rlson Co-EditorsC hapt er 1: I nt rod uc t i on Page 19 

## Ch ap ter 1 I NT RO DU CT I ON

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : D o u g C a r ls o n , D r . R o x a n n e C o n n e lly , P e te rC o n n e lly , D r . L a r r y H r ib a r, D r . K e n L in th ic u m , a nd D r. JackP et er se n 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r s : D r. R i ch a rd B a ker a nd D oug C ar l s on 

### 1 . 1 P URP OS E O F TH I S DOC UMEN T The purposeof this document is to ill ustrate the intric acie s of mosquito control and the relationships of mosqui to control ac tiviti es to other e nvironmental mana g ement strateg ies. This project e x plores the be nefits and risks of these strate g ies, particula rly the va ri ou s a c tiv iti e s o r e nv ir on me ntal mana g e me nt s tr a te g ie s th a t may be ne fi t or

a dv e rs e ly aff ect e ach othe r. 

### 1 . 2 MI SS I ON ST ATE MENT The F lorida L eg islature dec lare s in Chapter 388 of the F lorida Statues (F .S.) that it is t he pu bli c po lic y

of thi s State to a c hie ve a ndma int a in s uc h le ve ls o f a rthr op odc on tr ol a s w ill protec t human health and sa fety , foster the quality of life of the people, pr omote the economic de velopment of the state , and fa cilitate the enjoyment of its natural attractions by reduc ing the number of pe stiferous and dise ase- car rying a rthropods. The Leg islature a lso de c lare s inthestatut e that it is the po lic y

of theState to c on du c t arthr op odc on tr ol i n a ma nn e r c on sis te nt w ithpr ote c tio n o f the e nv ir on me ntal ande c olo g ic a l in te g ri ty of a ll la nd s a ndwate rs thr ou g ho ut the State . In a dd iti on to the le g isl a tiv e de c laratio n, mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i n F lorida ha ve e sta bli sh e d p oli c ie s th ro ug h th e F lorida Mo sq uit o Control Association (FMCA), w hich ena bles mosquito control operations to offe r maxi mum protection to the environment ba sed on a ne ed to control mosquitoes and rec ommendations of the F lorida De partment of A g riculture and Consumer Service s (F DACS).


### 1. 3 BRIE F I NTRODU CTION TO MOSQUITO BI OLOGY Mosquitoes are inse cts with long slende r bodies, nar row wing s with a fring e of sc ales on thehin d ma

rg ins a nda lon g theve ins , andlon g , v e ry thi n le g s. In f

e ma le s, thee lon g a te proboscis is firm and usua lly adapte d for pier cing and sucking blood; the males cannot su c k b loo d, bu t bo th s e xes f e e d o n n e c ta

r o f v ari ou s p la nts
. Therearefour life stag es: eg g , larva , pupa, and w inge d adult. Eg g s may be oviposited (l a id) sin g ly

or in r a ft s, de po sit e d inwate r, on thesid e s o f c on ta ine rs wh e rewate r w illC hapt er 1: I nt rod uc t i on Page 20

soon cover

them, or on damp soils wherethey must underg o a maturing proce ss before they can hatch when f

looded by rainfall or high tides. Af ter the tiny

eg g s hatch, the larva e (c ommonlycalled w igg lers) be g in to feed on ve ry small plant and animal pa rtic le s, g oin g thr ou g h f

ou r g ro wth s ta g e s ( c a lle d in sta rs ) b e fo rebe c omi ng pu pa e . M os t larva e, except in the g ener a Ma ns on ia and Coq uil le tti dia , must breathe at the surfa ce of the wate r. The two named g ener a havea shar p pointed siphon with which to pierce the ro ots a ndste ms o f a qu a tic plants to g e t th e ir oxy g e n f ro m th e plant. Th e pu pa l st a g e is compar atively

brief. T he pupa doe s not feed and is active g ener ally only if disturbed. When it has matured, the pupa remains at the surfa ce, thechitinous pupal skin spli ts, and thea du lt e me rg e s f

ro m th e skin, brie fl y

drie s it s w ing s, a ndfl ie s a way . O nly thefe ma le m o s q u i t o es b i t e, u s i n g b l o o dp ro t ei n fo r t h e d ev el o p m en to f t h ei r e ggs . T h e f l i gh tra n ge of mosquitoes varies g reatly , from seve ral hundre d fee t in some species to more than 20 mil e s inoth e rs (e xce rp te d f ro m Public Health Pest Control Applicator T raining Manual , FDA CS, 1994, 30 pp).


### 1. 4 INTE GRATED PEST MAN AGEMENT AS IT AP PL IE S TO MOSQUITO CONTROL I n o rd e r t o a c c omp lis h lo ng -r a ng e , in te lli g e nt, a nde nv ir on me ntally so un d p e st c on tr ol, the manag ement and manipulation of pests must be acc omplished using not just one but a ll a vaila blepe st c on tr ol m e tho ds . T his c omb ina tio n o f m e tho ds int o o ne tho ug htf ul, e c olo g ic a lly -v a lidpr og ram is re fe rr e d to a s Inte g rate d Pe st M a na g e me nt ( I PM) (p ara ph ra se d f ro m The Pesticide Book

by G.W. W are , Thomson Publi cations, 1994, 386 pp). A typical mosquito control prog ram e mploy ing IPM principles first determines the specie s and abundance of mosquitoes through la

rval and adult survey s and then uses the most efficie nt and ef

fec tive means of c ontrol. I n some situations, water mana g ement pr og rams o r s a nit a tio n p ro g rams c a n b e ins titute d to re du c e larv a l ha bit a ts. Whe n th is approa ch is not prac tical, a larviciding pr og ram then is used so that spe cific la rval habitats ca n be tre ated. Wherelarviciding is not effe ctive, adulticides a re use d. The choice of larvic ides and a dulticides used is based on the spe cies tar g eted f or control and e nv ir on me ntal c on c e rn s. An important part of

an IPM progr am is public education. Publ ic participation can do muc h to re du c e thebr e e din g sit e s o f d ome sti c mos qu ito e s. Pub lic e du c a tio n c a n b e mos t eff ective during dise ase e pidemics to educa te the public conc erning mosquito habits and way s individuals can protec t themselves from mosquito attack. Som e mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro fe ssi on a ls p re fe r t o u se thete rm I nte g rate d M os qu ito Ma na g e me nt ( IMM) or

I nte g rate d V e c tor

Ma na g e me nt ( I VM ) i n p la c e of I nte g rate d Pe st Ma na g e me nt ( I PM) . H ow e ve r, fo r the pu rp os e s o f this pu bli c a tio n, in p artic ula r b e c aus e people outside of the mosquito control communitywho re ad this may not be familiar wi th the te rm s IMM o r IVM , w e ha ve c ho se n to us e thete rm I PM th ro ug ho ut this publication when a

ppropriate
.C hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 21



## Ch ap ter 2 HI S TOR Y O F FL OR I DA MOS QU I TO C ON TR OL

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r : D r . R o x a n n e C o n n e lly 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : John B ei dl er

Summ ary Since the day s of the early European e xplorers, writings s how that mo sq uitoe s h av e pla

y e d a prom ine nt r

ole in F lor ida 's hi sto ry bo th a s p e st and disease problems. Spanish, English, and French e xplorers told tales of mosquitoes in such abundance that theywere force d to sleep on the beach c overe d with sand. In the 1870s and 1880s, outbreaks of Y ellow Fev er in the Panhandle, J acksonv ille, Key W

est, Tampa, Plant Ci ty, and Manatee County took a tremendous toll in human suffering and death. The se e v e nts le d to the for ma tio n o f th e Fl or ida Sta te Bo ar

d o f H e alt h in 1889. Dr. J. Y

. Porter, a physician and a noted mosquito ex pert, was chosen as the first head of the Board. The Florida Anti-Mosquito Associati on was formed in 1922. The Florida Legislature created the first mosquito control dist rict, the Indian Rive r Mosquito Control District, in 1925 in conjunction w ith the formation of Indian River County. The St. Lucie M osquito Cont rol Distri ct was formed a year later in 1926. Early pe rmanent control efforts focused on hand ditc hin g, so me dik ing an d d e wate rin g, an d p ro

po se d s om e dre dg e an d fi ll work. The W

ork Projec ts Administrat ion constructed 1500 miles of ditches in Florida'

s salt marshes by hand or with explosives. Perhaps the most signifi cant mosquito control eve nt in Florida w as the creation of Sta te fun ds thr

ou gh the e ffo rts of D r. J

oh n M ulre nn an , S r. in 1 95 3. Thi s legislatively established program was designated for permanent c ontrol wor k whi c h in c lud

e d d re dg e an d fi ll, ditc hin g, an d im po un dm e nt a nd

als o established the Entomological Rese arch Center, now known as the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Medic al Entomology Laboratory in Vero Beach. I n 2004, Dr. Gordon Patterson published The Mosquito W ars: A History of Mosquito Control in Florida, a book that details the history of mosquito control in Fl orida.


### 2 . 1 I NTR ODU CTI ON Sin c e theday s o f the e arl y Eu ro pe a n e xplor e rs , mo sq uit oe s h a ve play e d a pr omi ne nt r ole in Florida' s history , both as pests and c arriers of disea se. Va rious Spanish, English, and Fr ench a ccounts tell of mosquito abundanc e suff icient to forc e ea

rly explorers to sleep onC hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 22 the bea ch and c over the mselves with sand. In the 1870 and 1880 outbre aks of y ellow feve r (YF ) in such widespr ead loc ations as Pensac ola, Fe rnandina , J acksonville, Ke y West, Tampa, Plant Cit y , and Manatee County , there was a tremendous toll in human su ff e ri ng a ndde a th. I n Jac ks on vil le , w itha po pu latio n o f 2 6, 80 0, the18 88 e pid e mic killed 400 people, sicke ned 5,000 people , and ca used 10,000 people to flee the city . Of the16 ,4 00 pe op le re ma ini ng in the c ity , 1 4, 00 0 c iti zen s w e rele ft un e mpl oy e d a s a

re su lt of the bre akdown of

commerc e. 

### 2 . 2 ST ATE I NV OL V EME NT Th e se e ve nts , e sp e c ia lly

tho se in Ja c ks on vil le , le d to thefo rm a tio n o f the F lorida State Boa rd of He alth (F SBH) in 1889. J.Y. Porter, a phy sician and note d YF e x pert fr om Key West, was chosen a s the first hea d of the F SBH. The first eff orts to preve nt epidemics included fumig ation of ships and quar antine of pa sseng ers. When the F SBH wa s cre ated, there latio ns hip be tw e e n mo sq uit oe s a ndYF wa s u nkno wn . N ot u nti l 18 98 wa s it determined that mosquitoes transmit malaria, and, in 1900, the same association was made f or YF . I n Florida , the last ca se of YF occur red in 1905. De ng ue wa s last reporte d in 1932. Malaria w as er adicated from F lorida by 1948. Therewas one locally acquir ed caseof malaria in Gulf County in 1990, the first ca se in 42 y ear s, and seve ral c ases we re re po rt e d inPa lm B e a c h Co un ty in 1 99 6 andin 2 00 3 b y

patie nts wh o h a d n e ve r l ive d in or visited a malaria ende mic are a. Although not doc umented, the f irst org anized mosquito control efforts probably wer e dir e c te d at Ae de s a e gy

pti . During World W ar I , draina g e and la rviciding eff

orts wer e direc ted towar d malaria

control in the ar ea that is now the J acksonville Na val Air Station. The fir st FSBH involveme nt was a ma laria c ontrol project in the c ity of Perry in 1919. Th e c os ts w e rebo rnby

thec ity , T a y lor

Cou nty , andtheB urton -S wa rt z Cy pr e ss Company . T he pr oje c t w a s so su c c e ssf ul that th e ma na g e r o f B urton -S wa rt z state d th a t it wa s th e be st m on e y

that th e c omp a ny

ha d e ve r s pe nt. I n 1941, the B ureau of Malaria Control was formed within the FSB H and wa s used prima ri ly to t rain m a lari olo g ist s to se rv e F lorida a ndoth e r m a lari ou s a

re a s during Wor ld W ar I I
. I n 1 9 4 6 , t h e B u re au o f M al ar i a w as ab o l i s h ed , an dt h e D i v i s i o n o f E n t o m o l o gy was c reated within the Bur eau of Sanitary Eng ineering, State B oard of Hea lth. I n 1953, theDi vis ionof

En tom olo g y

wa s u pg ra de d to bu re au s tatus , andstate a id t o c ou nty m o s q u i t o c o n tr o l p r o g r a m s w a s e s t ab l i s h e da n da d m i n i s t e r e db y t h e n e w b u r e au . In 1976, the B ureau of Entomology became the Of

fice of Entomology

in the newly

cre ated Florida Depa rtment of He alth and Reha bilitative Services (F DHRS). I n 1992 the offic e was transfer

red to the F lorida De partment of A g riculture and Consumer Service s (F DACS) as a bur eau. 

### 2 . 3 O RG AN I Z E D P RO G RA MS Th e F lorida

An ti- Mo sq uit o A sso c iatio n ( F AM A) , n ow kn ow n a s th e F lorida Mo sq uit o Control Association (FMCA), w as formed in 1922, followed shortly by leg islation allowing the cr eation of mosquito control Specia l Taxi ng Districts. The first district fo rm e d w a s th e I nd ia n Ri ve r M os qu ito Con tr ol D ist ri c t ( MCD ) i n 1 92 5. Th e St. Luc ieC hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 23 MCD and Martin MCD wer e formed shortly there afte r, and by

1935, five districts had been c reated. Early

control ef

forts foc used on hand and dy namite ditching , diking, and dewatering . Some districts proposed dredg e and f ill work, which wa s never implemented. During the Depr ession, the Work Projects Administration (WP A) constructe d 1,500 miles of ditches in Florida ' s salt marshes by hand or w ith ex plosives. Many of these ditche s became a liability when the pr og ram e nded and maintenance c e a se d. Wor ld Wa

r II br ou g ht a

te mpo ra ry e ndto all o f F lorida ' s o rg a nize d mo sq uit o c on tr ol e ff

orts. Ho we ve r, theState of F lorida , th ro ug h th e B ur e au o f M a lari a Con tr ol, helped to tra in malaria c ontrol worker s for the a rmed for ces. Mosquito Control in W ar Are as wa s established in Tallaha ssee and throug hout malarious ar eas of Florida and the United States. At thee ndof

Wor ld Wa

r II , d ic hlo ro -d iph e nyl- tric hlo ro e thane (D DT ) b e c a me a vaila ble a ndwa s th e mate ri a l of

c ho ic e fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol. Al mos t all e xistin g mos qu ito c on tr ol d ist

ri c ts e mba

rk e d u po n a

pr og ram of

a e ri a l a ndg ro un d u se of

DD T f or bo th adult and larval control. A numbe r of ne w prog rams we re f ormed to take advanta g e of this new insecticide. B eg inning in 1949, the State pr ovided funds, known a s State I funds, on a dollar -for -dollar annual matching basis for the f irst $15,000 of the loca l bu dg e t, f or thepu rc ha se of

c he mic a ls andsu pp lie s. Re su lts wi th D DT we rea ma zing ly g ood, and ther e wa s widespre ad belief that DDT ha d answe red F lorida' s mosquito control pr ob le ms. Th is e up ho ri a

la ste d o nly

a fe w s ho rt y e ars , lo ng e no ug h f

or re sis ta nc e to develop to DDTand many of the other

chlorinate d hy droca

rbon insecticide s. Early scientists and administrators, among them Drs. Maurice W. Provost and J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr., r ecog nized that chemical c ontrol alone wa s doomed to failure for many rea sons. Dr. Mulrennan, Sr. approa ched the leg islature and in 1953 obtaine d additional fu nd ing , kno wna s State I I fu nd s, to e nc ou ra g e pe rm a ne nt c on tr ol ( so ur c e re du c tio n) wi th a money matching prog ram in which the state would provide $75 f or ea ch $100 in a prog ram' s local budg et. State I I funds wer e instrumental in eliminating thousands of acr es of sa ltmarsh mosquito ovi position si tes and prompted the cre ation of many new mosquito control prog rams. In addition, Dr. Mulrennan, Sr. obtained funds to build and staff a mosquito resear ch labor atory subsequently

constructe d in Vero B eac h and hea ded by Dr. Provost. State I I

funds wer e droppe d in 1993.


### 2 . 4 RES EAR CH Severa l resea

rch f acilities in Florida have bee n instrumental in the scientific g uidance of mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i n F lorida a ndthere st o f the wo rl d. Th e fi rs t r e se arc h f a c ili ty was a United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture ( USDA) fie ld laboratory established at New Smy rna ( Volusia County ) in ea rly 1930. This laboratory

emphasized the study

of saltmarsh mosquito biology and the c ontrol of these mosquitoes by ditching. I n 1942, the USDA' s I nsects Af fec ting Man and Animals re sear ch g roup established a laboratory

in Orlando with the re sponsibili ty of deve loping mea sures for control of and p r o t e c t i o n f

r o mi n s e c t s o f

m e d i c a l i m p o rt a n c e t o t h e ar m e df o r c e s . D u r i n g W o r l dW ar IIC hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 24 and the Kor ean War , this laboratory furnished va luable information on the control of medically important insects including mosquitoes. This laboratory was the f irst to adapt DD T t o me dic a l e nto mol og y . M a ny of theme tho ds that areus e d to day fo r m os qu ito control, such a s the Ultra L ow Volume (U LV) a dulticiding tec hniques and the de ve lop me nt o f the re pe lle nt N ,N -d ie thyl- me ta -t olu a mid e (D EE T) , c a me fr om this USDA laboratory . I n 1963, the laboratory was moved to Gainesville and in 1993 was re name d th e Me dic a l a ndVe te ri na ry En tom olo g y

Re se arc h L abo ratory . In 1 99 6, it became the Center

for Me dical, Ag ricultural, and Veterinary Entomology

(CMAVE). I n 1947, Dr. Mulre nnan, Sr., Chief of the Bur eau of Malaria Control, St ate B oard of Hea lth, took the first step by the State of F lorida towar d rese arc h on the biology and control of mosquitoes by

hiring Dr. Maurice W. Provost to organize such a prog ram. This resea

rch e ffort was ce ntere d in Orlando and consisted entire ly of field investig ations into various problems in the Florida Key s, L akeland, L eesbur g , Ft. Pierc e, Ne w Smyrna Be ach, and Panama City . The most signific ant of these studies was conduc ted on Sanibel I sland, wher e the sa lt marsh and its role in mosquito production was investig ated f or sever al y ear s. For se ven y ear s (1947-1954), this work w as conduc ted without laboratory fac iliti es. Howe ver, this def iciency was re medied in 1954. The state e stablished in 1954 at Ver o Be ach the Entomologica l Resear ch Center (ERC), which is now ca lled the Florida Medica l Entomology L aboratory

(F MEL ). The E RC was cre ated to study

mosquito control problems with emphasis on mosquit o biology and related subjects. All aspe cts of mosquito biology wer e studied and inc luded such wor k as flig ht behavior, la

rval de velopment, and sa lt marsh manag ement. Now unde r the Un ive rs ity

of F lorida ' s Ins tituteof

F oo d andAg ri c ultur a l Sc ie nc e s, F ME L is s til l operating in Ve ro B eac h with many new f acilities and prog rams desig ned to provide answe rs for and disseminate information to mosquito control ag encie s and the public. I n 1955, a Control Resear ch Section wa s added to the ERC to study chemical and phy sical control pr oblems. This section, heade d by Dr. A. J. Roger s, was moved in 1964 to Panama City

and name d the West Florida Arthropod Resea rch L aboratory

as part of FSB H. The name was c hang ed to the John A. Mulrennan, Sr. Arthropod Re sear ch L abo ratory

(JA MSA RL ) i n 1 98 6, wh ile un de r F DH RS. In 1 99 2, it w a s tr a ns fe rr e d to Florida Ag ricultural and Mechanical Univer sity(F AMU) and renamed the John A. Mulrennan, Sr. Public He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center (PHEREC). The Center ’s re sear ch involves adulticiding , larviciding , mosquito resistance, non- targ et eff ects, biolog ical/alternative contr ol, and ar bovirus ecolog y

desig ned to meet the ne eds of F lorida mosquito control prog rams. The Center pr ovides other use ful information on mosquitoes and other a

rthropods of medic al importance( e.g. , dog flies, y ellow flies, and ticks). I n 1963, the Ence phalitis Researc h Center ( ERC) was established in Tampa to study the epidemiolog y

of ar boviruses. This ce nter ha s been r ename d twice, f irst to the E p i d e m i o l o g i c a l R e s e ar c h C e n t e r a n df i n a l l y, i n 1 9 9 1 , t o t h e T a m p a B r a n c h L ab o r a t o ry, F DH RS. B y

thetim e of

thela st n a me c hang e , th e la bo ratory ' s mi ssi on ha d e vo lve d to emphasize the diag nosis of more common infe ctious diseases that a re not mosquito-C hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 25 borne. Thelaboratory

still perf orms diag nostic serolog y

for e ncephalitis viruses on ser a from sentinel c hickens. This work is now a minor function of the la

boratory
. I n addition to the work of the f ormal g overnme ntal laboratories, a g reat deal of r esea rch is done by

mosquito control prog rams. Most projec ts are on a cooper ative basis with the above- mentioned laboratories and include such subjects a s water manag ement, che mical fo rmulatio ns , d isp e rs a l e qu ipm e nt, a ndsu rv e ill a nc e . So me mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams ha ve de ve lop e d id e a s o f the ir ow n w hic h h a vebe e n q uic kly a do pte d b y

the ir c oll e a g ue s, such as ULV application devices and formulas for more e fficie nt insecticide disper sal. Cooperation and the sharing of idea s among mosquito control prog rams ar e a hallmark of themos qu ito c on tr ol p ro fe ssi on , andma ny ne w a dv a nc e s h a ve re su lte d f ro m th e se e ff orts. Pr ivate or g a nizatio ns a lso ha ve stu die d mo sq uit o c on tr ol a c tiv iti e s. Chi e f amon g the se arethe Har

bor B ranc h Oce anog raphic I nstitut ion in St . Lucie County , the Mote Marine L aboratory

in Sarasota County , and the F lorida Institut e of Te chnolog y in Bre vard Cou nty . T he se ins tituti on s h a ve c on du c te d r e se arc h o n to pic s su c h a s in se c tic idal e ff e c ts on non-targ et org anisms and ec osy stem eff ects of sa lt marsh manag ement pra ctices ( see Chapter 11 f

or more de tails).


### 2. 5 TRAINING AND PROFE SSI ONALISM I n 1984, under the leade rship of the late Glennon Dodd, f ormer A ssistant Director of the I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict, a se ries of r ound table discussions was he ld on topics such as surve illance, larviciding te chniques, and adulticiding me thods. W ith the he lp o f Jim R ob ins on , D ir e c tor of thePa sc o Co un ty

Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol D ist

ri c t, andB ill Opp, then with the Of

fice of Entomology , FDH RS, a formal set of c ourses wa s de ve lop e d andus e d to tr a in m os qu ito c on tr ol p e rs on ne l w iththea im o f c e rtif y ing a ll wo rk e rs wi th a

pr e re qu isi te of

theEn vir on me ntal Pr ote c tio n A g e nc y ' s ( EPA ) C OR E examination in publ ic hea lth pest control. Today , the Dodd Short Courses ar e sponsore d by the FMCA and held annua lly . Courses areoffe red in fie lds as wide-r ang ing a s personne l manag ement and dr oplet siz e analy sis. More than 25 topics w ereprese nted at the 2008 se ssion. This progr am aims to assure that Florida

mosquito control prog rams ar e staff ed with well-trained individuals (see Chapter 12 f

or more de tails).


### 2. 6 INTE RAGENC Y CON FL ICT AND COOPERATIO N I n 1980, considera

ble disag ree ment conce rning some mosquito control practice s exi sted be tw e e n mo sq uit o c on tr ol i nte re sts , r e pr e se nte d b y theOf fi c e of En tom olo g y , F DH RS, a ndtheF lorida

De pa rtme nt o f N a tur a l Re so ur c e s ( DN R) , tw o s tate a g e nc ie s w ith c on fl ic tin g ma nd a te s. Go ve rn or Gr aham in te rv e ne d to re so lvethi s andfu tur e pr ob le ms by forming a committee r epre senting these va rious conce rns. This committee was the be g inn ing of

theGo ve rn or ' s Wor

kin g Gr ou p o n M os qu ito Con tr ol, wh ic h h a d it s f ir st me e tin g in M a y

19 80 . It w a s f

ro m th is b e g inn ing that th e F lorida Coo rd inatin g Cou nc ilC hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 26 on Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol ( F CCMC ) w a s c re a te d b y theL e g isl a tur e in C ha

pte r 3 88 F .S. in 1986. The membe rship of F CCMC essentially followed that of the Governor' s Working Gr oup. The orig inal members r epre sented e ach of the following ag encie s: DNR, FDACS, the F lorida De pa rtme nt o f E nv ir on me ntal Re g ulatio n ( DE R) , th e F lorida Game a ndFre sh Water F ish Comm ission (FGFWFC), the UF , the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the USDA. A lso included wer e two mosquito control direc tors and two re prese ntatives from F DHRS, an epidemiolog ist and the Direc tor of the Of fice of E n t o m o l o gy , wh o wo u l ds er v e a s ch ai rm an . Ad d ed i n 1 9 8 6 we re t wo at -l ar ge environmenta lists and two property owner s whose lands we re subjec t to mosqui to control a c tiv iti e s. Th e me mbe rs hip ha s b e e n mo dif ie d s inc e 19 86 to r e fl e c t c hang e s ina g e nc ie s, such as the c reation of the Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection (FD EP) from the DNR and D ER, the chang e re sulting in the transf er of the entomolog y

prog ram fr om FDH RS t o FDA CS, and the J AMSARL transfe r to FA MU. Cur re ntl y , th e F CCMC me e ts thr e e tim e s a y e ar andis s pe c if

ic a lly ma nd a te d to a ssi st FDA CS i n resolving disputes arising over the control of a rthropods on publicly

owned lands, to identify

and re commend to FA MU rese arc h priorities for a rthropod contr ol prac tices and te chnolog ies, to develop and rec ommend to FDACS a re quest-for -proposa l proce ss for arthropod control re sear ch, to identify potential funding source s for re sear ch on implementation projects, and to e valuate and rank pr oposals upon reque st by the funding source . A final mandate is to prepar e and pr esent re ports, as nee ded, on arthropod c ontrol activities in the state to the Pesticide Review Council, the Florida Coastal Manag ement Prog ram Intera g ency Manag ement Committ ee, and other g overnme ntal org anizations as appropriate. One of the most important activities of the FCCMC was the c reation of the Subcommitt ee on Manag ed Mar shes (SOMM), orig inally named the T echnic al Sub c omm itt e e on Mo sq uit o Impo un dme nts , in19 83 . LiketheF CCMC , it wa s f orma lly established as SOMM in Chapter 388 F .S. in 1986. This i ntera g ency committee, with a membership make up simil ar to F CCMC , was e stablished to provide tec hnical assistanc e and g uidance on salt marsh mana g ement plans and to develop and r eview r esea rch pr op os a ls f

or so ur c e re du c tio n te c hn iqu e s. 

### 2. 7 CONC LUSI ON This history

of mosquito control in Florida and the institut ions that have influenc ed it are all too brief and leave s out many fac ets of mosquito control history that should be rec orded. Sec tion 2.8 provides a re fer encefor suc h a re cord. A dditional hist ory appea rs e lse wh e rein this re po rt
.C hapt er 2: H i s t ory of Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol Page 27 

### 2. 8 A PUBLI SHED HI STORY OF FL ORIDA MOSQUITO CONTROL Dr. Richar d Ba

ker, during his tenur e as D irec tor of the F MEL , encour ag ed Dr . Gordon Patterson, profe ssor of history at Florida Institut e of Te chnolog y , to write a history of mosquito control in Florida. Dr. Patter son was then introduc ed to J ohn Be idler and a ho st o f e nto mol og ist s, mos qu ito c on tr ol andpu bli c he a lthwo rk e rs , s tate of fi c ia ls, librarians, and others who pr ovided assistance , information, and anecdote s about the early y ear s of mosquito control in Florida. The result of Dr . Patterson’s re sear ch wa s the 2004 publication of The Mosquito Wars: A History of Mosquito Control i n Florida
. Th is work is an e loquent rea d that details the stories, name s, and the fa ces of those who have influence d mosquito control in Florida.


### 2 . 9 REF ERE NCE Patterson, G. 2004. The Mosquito W ars: A History of Mosquito Control i n Florida
. Gainesville, F L : University Press of F lorida.C hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 28 

## Ch ap ter 3 INTEGRA TED MOSQUITO SU RVEI LLANC E AND ENVI RONMENTAL MONITORI NG TO ASS ESS CHANGES I N MOSQUITO

POP ULATI ONS

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r : D en n i s M o o re 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : D r . C h a r lie M o r r is

Summ ary This chapter discusses the importance and le gal obligati ons regarding mo sq uito a nd

e nv iro nm e nta l su rv e ill an c e sy ste ms . I nc lud e d a re dis c us sio ns of h ow to d

e v e lop , d e sig n, an d im

ple me nt m os qu ito su rv e ill an c e sy ste ms . Co mm on ly us e d m e tho ds to i nv e nto ry mo sq uito habitats, collect immature and adult mosquitoes, and monitor e nv iro nm e nta l pa ra me te rs t ha t c an be us e d to pre dic t m os qu ito eme rgence s are discussed.


### 3. 1 INTRODUCTION Mo sq uit o s urve ill a nc e is a pr e re qu isi te to an e ff

e c tiv e , e ff ic ie nt, a nde nv ir on me ntally sound mosquito control progr am. Surveillanceis used to define the natureand extent of themos qu ito pr ob le m a ndto g aug e daily mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns . I t pr ov ide s a

ba sis fo r e va luatin g thee ff

e c tiv e ne ss o f c on tr ol o pe ratio ns , th e data ne e de d to c omp ly

wi th state rules and reg ulations reg arding the justification for tre atments, and a basis for evaluating the pote ntial for transmissi on of mosquito-borne disea ses (seeChapter 8)
. Mosquito surveillance is most effe ctive whe n combined with an ong oing pr og ram for monitoring mete orolog ical, astronomical, and environme ntal fac tors that may influence mosquito popul ation chang e. F or example, rainf all and g round water leve ls, temperatur e, relative humidity , wind direc tion and velocity , tidal chang es, lunar c y cles, stormwater and wa stewate r mana g ement, and land use patterns are all fac tors that may influence mos qu ito po pu latio n le ve ls anda du lt m os qu ito fl ig ht b e ha vio r anddis pe rs a l. The objec tives of this chapter areto char acte rize mosquito and environmental surveillancesy stems and to provide a g ener al re view of F lorida mosquito control pr og rams.C hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 29



### 3. 2 DEV ELOP ING AN I NTEGRATED M OSQUI TO SU RV EI LL ANCE P ROG RAM I deally , the structureand implementation of an integ rate d mosquito surveillance prog ram sh ou ld b e ba se d o n th e ne e ds of theloc a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol a g e nc y . M or e ov e r, the se needs should def

ine the compone nts of the control prog ram, a s well as the budg et require d to implement them. I n fac t, this process is often re verse d. Mosquito control prog rams ar e funde d at a spe cific le vel, g ener ally without a needs- assessment proc ess. The prog ram dire ctor is then re quired to mee t all mosquit o control nee ds within the c on str a int s o f a

fi xedbu dg e t. If f

un din g fo r this pr oc e ss i s in a de qu a te , th e re su lt i s incomplete mosquito surveillance with relianc e upon undesira ble and less e ffe ctive c on tr ol m e tho ds
. Th e ste ps in d e ve lop ing a n in te g rate d mo sq uit o s urve ill a nc e pr og ram a s p art of a n o ve ra ll mos qu ito c on tr ol e ff

ort areto:

• De fi ne are a -s pe c if

ic mos qu ito pr ob le ms

• Def ine ar ea- specific mosquito control strateg ies

• De sig n a

mos qu ito su rv e ill a nc e pr og ram to be us e d a s a de c isi on -m akin g a id to help determine when and wher e mosquito control eff orts areneede d


### 3 . 3 DEF I NI NG ARE A- SP ECI F I C MO SQ UI TO P ROB LE MS AND CONTROL STRATEGIE S Thereareat least 80 mosquito species in F lorida, and e very Florida county has seve ral specie s that are dang erous disea se vec tors and seve ral more specie s that cre ate a major nuisance during most mont hs of the y ear . The fir st step in determining which mosquito species must be monitored is to determine wh ic h s pe c ie s c aus e pr ob le ms. Con tr ol e ff orts c a n b e jus tif

ie d w he n a

mos qu ito po se s a nuisance or is an ec onomic or hea lth-relate d pest or vec tor. A nuisancemosquito bot hers pe op le , ty pic a lly in andaro un d h ome s o r i n r e c re a tio na l are a s. Ane c on omi c a lly important mosquito reduces pr operty values, slows ec onomic development of an ar ea, reduc es tourism, or adve rsely aff ects livestock and poultry production. A he alth-re lated mos qu ito pr ob le m is theabil ity of a mos qu ito sp e c ie s to tr a ns mit patho g e ns that c aus e dis e a se . In F lorida , th is d e fi nitionc ur re ntl y inc lud e s o nly

mos qu ito sp e c ie s th a t tr a ns mit dog heartworm, St. L ouis ence phalitis virus, W est Nile virus, and e astern e quine ence phalitis virus. However , near by in the Caribbean and Centra l America , other mosquito-transmitted diseases ar e common ( e.g. , deng ue, malaria). Any mosquito t hat bit e s o r ann oy s p e op le c a n b e c on sid e re d a he a lthpr ob le m, p artic ula rl y fo r i nd ivi du a ls who ar e aller g ic to mosquito bi tes or suff er f rom entomophobia (an unrea sonable fe ar of insects). A list of important nuisance and vector mosquito species can be compiled f rom a re view of the literature. The g eog raphic and tempora l distributi ons of these spe cies a lso can beC hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 30

found in the published literature . Once targ et spec ies have been ide ntified, selec ted ar eas can besampled fr equently to determine the abundanc e of a dults and larvaeof the spec ies of int e re st. Mo sq uit o s urve y s sh ou ld b e c on du c te d a s n e e de d th ro ug ho ut the mos qu ito activity season. Data from mosquito survey s can beused to determine the abundance and seasona l distributi on of ea ch spec ies. Con tr ol s tr a te g ie s c a n b e de ve lop e d b a se d o n s urve ill a nc e data . Si nc e mos qu ito collection methods diffe r in their ef fec tiveness for sampling diffe rent spec ies, more than one collec tion method may be used to a ccur ately

determine the sea sonality and abundanc e of a ll the important mosquit o specie s in an are a. Multiple surveillance techniques f

or larva e and a dult mosqui toes should be used to ac curately quantify mosquito abundance
. 

### 3 . 4 DES I GNI NG A MO SQ UI TO S URV EI LL ANCE P ROG RAM Once a list of local tar g eted mosquito species ha s been c ompiled, two additional questions must be answer ed:

• Whic h mo sq uit o s pe c ie s w ill be targ e te d f or c on tr ol e ff

orts?

• What is theg e og ra

ph ic a ndte mpo ral di stribu tio n o f e a c h ta rg e te d mo sq uit o s p e c i e s ? I n F lorida , te mpo ral a ndg e og ra ph ic a l c hang e s inmos qu ito po pu latio ns a ndthepr ob le ms that mo sq uit oe s c aus e areme a su re d b y mon ito ri ng thr e e fa c tor s:

• Telephoneor we bsite reque sts for mosquito control service s

• Ad ult mos qu ito po pu latio ns a s me a su re d b y tr app ing a ndla nd ing c ou nts

• I mmature mosquito populations as measure d by larva l inspections No t a ll m os qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i n F lorida mon ito r all o f the se va

ri able s. Mo st mosquito surveillance prog rams re ly on the y ear s of experienc e of district pe rsonnel and areusually

a compilation of surve illance tec hniques that have been show n – usually by trial and e rror

– to work for

a spec ific prog ram. Some of the ba sic mosquito surveillance techniques use d in Florida a re discusse d below.
3.4.1 Telephon e or We bsite ServiceRequests One method f

or quantifying loc al nuisancemosquito problems is t hroug h telephone or website service r equests. Most Florida mosquito control prog rams havea telephone nu mbe r that c iti zen s c a n c a ll t o r e qu e st m os qu ito c on tr ol s e rv ic e s. Se ve ral pr og rams have de veloped their

own websites whe re c itiz ens can g o to enter a complaint on-line. Service reque sts are g ener ally related to specific mosquito species. The mosquitoes re s p o n s i b l e f

o r s er v i ce re q u es t s v ar y

co n s i d er ab l y

fr o mre gi o n t o re gi o n an do ft en ch an geC hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 31

du ri ng they e ar. Al tho ug h s e rv ic e re qu e sts area c c e pte d a s a way to m e e t State r e q u i r e m e n t s f

o r m o n i t o r i n g m o s q u i t o p r o b l e m s t o j u s t i f y c o n tr o l , t h e s e r e q u e s t s a l w a ys should be verif

ied by other surve illance tec hniques prior to any treatment. Service reque sts can be handled in a variety of way s. Most progr ams rec ord the information on data she ets, while some prog rams re cord c omplaint data via softwa re prog rams linked to a Ge og raphic I nformation Sy stem (GI S). The service r equests can be display ed on a ma

p using a GI S software prog ram to assist in display ing c lusters or patte rn s o f p ote nti a l mo sq uit o p ro ble ms. Th e se rv ic e re qu e st d a ta areultimate ly

us e d to d e t e r m i n e w h e r e t o c o n c e n tr a t e c o n tr o l e f f o rt s o n c e t h e r e q u e s t s ar e v e r i f i e d
. T yp i c a l l y, a n in sp e c tor

wi ll b e se nt t o v e ri fy

these rv ic e re qu e st i n a

re a s w he rehig h mo sq uit o po pu latio n d e ns iti e s a

reno t in dic a te d b y

oth e r s urve ill a nc e te c hn iqu e s. I n s omec a se s, chang es in the numbers of reque sts from one day

to the next are used to evaluate the eff ectivene ss of control oper ations. Se rv ic e re qu e sts that areg e ne rate d b y thepr e se nc e of

c on ta ine r- inh abiting mos qu ito specie s, such as the A sian tige r mosquito ( Aede s albopictus ), Ae. ae gypti, or c e rt a in Culex specie s, may

requirean inspec tion to identifypotential larva l habitats. I nspectors a l s o c a n a s s i s th o m e o w n e r s w i t h p o i n t
- s o u r c e r e d u c t i o n o f c o n t a i n e r s t h a th o l dw a t e r . If the servic e re quest results from f loodwater mosquitoes (saltwater

or fr eshwater) or pe rm a ne nt w a te r m os qu ito e s su c h a s Anopheles, Coquillettidia, or Ma ns on ia , the citizen is usually told by mosquito control personnel the steps that will be attempted to corre ct thepr ob le m. T he ins pe c tor wi ll a sse ss thea du lt m os qu ito po pu latio n anda tte mpt to locate the source of larval development using techniques de scribed in this cha pter.
3.4.2 Monitoring Adul t Mosquitoes Al tho ug h s e rv ic e re qu e sts area c c e pte d to me e t th e State re qu ir e me nts to j us tif y c on tr ol, mos t mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams i n F lorida us e on e or

mor e me tho ds to m e a su rea du lt mos qu ito po pu latio ns be fo rea c on tr ol d e c isi on is m a de . T he pu rp os e of mon ito ri ng a du lt mos qu ito e s is :

• To determine wher e adults ar e most numerous

• To substantiate service r equest c laims of a mosquito problem

• To determine the ef

fec tiveness of sourc e re duction, larviciding , and adulticiding c ontrol methods

• To provide data that satisfies F lorida Administrative Code 5E-13 to insure that applications of pe sticides aremade only when ne cessa

ry Florida Administrative Code 5E-13.036 de aling with mosquit o surveillanceis conce rned only with the monitoring of a dult mosqui toes. Acc ording to this rule, beforeadulticides can beapplied, a monitoring prog ram must detec t an incre ase in the mosquito population above a prede termined ba seline, collec t more than twe nty -five mosquitoes in a sing le trapC hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 32

night, or collect more than five mosquitoes per hour of ope ration. The r ules do not specify the type or numbe r of tra ps or the spec ies or sex of the mosquitoes capture d, but the y make theapp lic a tio n o f a du lti c ide s il le g a l w he n mo sq uit oe s a reno t pr e se nt. Th is ru le wa s in iti a te d in19 87 , and , f or thefi rs t ti me , f

or c e d many

mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams to use mosquito surveillance to justify spraying.
3.4.2.1 Land ing Rates L anding rate s are utiliz ed by more than 90% (per s. comm., FDA CS 2006) of Florida m o s q u i t o c o n tr o l p r o g r a m s . T h e y ar e u s e df o r m e a s u r i n g a d u l tm o s q u i t o a c t i v i t y, aug mentation of existi ng mechanical tra p collections, or a ssessment of customer complaints for making spot treatments with adulticides. The technique c onsists of counting the number of

mosquitoes that land on a per son in a g iven amount of time. The spec ific method used to dete rmine a landing r ate va ries among prog rams. Important varia bles arethe time of day

at which obse rvations ar e made , the duration of observations, the portion of the subject' s body observe d for landing mosquitoes, the nu mbe r andty

pe of ha bit a ts, a ndthenu mbe r o f h uman s ub je c ts u se d. It is imp orta nt t o choose a landing rate protocol and a void chang ing thevaria bles to g et meaning ful data. Day -to-day

chang es in the biting population at a g iven site arebest ref lected w hen the same individual perf

orms the landing rate at that site. L a nd ing rate s ta

ke n d uring theday

c a n b e e ff

e c tiv e fo r m on ito ri ng sa ltm ars h mo sq uit oe s, which bite during the ea

rly morning and during the day . L anding rate s also areuseful for evaluating a ctivity

of day -biting, c ontainer- inhabiting ( including br omeliad) mosquitoes wh ic h a rec omm on aro un d h ome s. Al tho ug h many c re pu sc ula

r s pe c ie s c a n b e loc a te d in well shade d, moist canopied ar eas during day light hours, it is best to assess their landing rate at the time of pe ak ac tivity . The host-see king f emales c an be c ollected with a battery power ed aspirator for a

set time interval and ide ntified later.
3. 4. 2. 2 M e c hani c al T r aps Th e Ne w Je rs e y

Lig ht T ra

p ( NJLT) is t

ra dition a lly

g re e n inc olo r, us e s a

25 -w a tt b ulb , is pla c e d 5 1⁄2 f

e e t of f o f the g ro un d, a ndis u se fu l inme a su ri ng re lativ e abu nd a nc e of c e rt a in mosquito species. The lig ht is the attractant, and many insects other than mosquitoes also areattrac ted to the trap. TheNJ LTs wer e first used in a statewide pr og ram in the mid -1 95 0s by

theF lorida

B oa rdof He a lthmos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g ram. L oc a l pr og rams wo uldop e rate thetr aps a ndse ndthec oll e c tio ns to the De pa rtme nt o f H e a lthin J acksonville for

identification. Mosquito identification eventua lly became the responsibilityof the loca l prog rams. During this transition, many prog rams that lac ked expertise in mosquit o identification stopped tra pping. Be causeNJ LTs require110V AC power , they have be en oper ating in the same locations for de cade s, and the historica l monitoring data have be en valua

ble for doc umenting the lon g -t e rm c hang e s inmos qu ito po pu latio ns a t th os e loc a tio ns . Wh ile NJLTs areus ua lly operated overnight, the numbe r of tra p sites and the fr equenc y

of trapping vary

amongC hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 33

mosquito control prog rams. Curre ntly , there areno rules of thumb, established stand ard s, or

State ru le s th a t app ly

to theop e ratio n o f N JL Ts
. The majority

of F lorida mosquito control prog rams (79% ; pers. comm., F DACS 2006) use the Center

for Dise ase Control lig ht traps (CDC) to monitor adult mosquitoes. The CDC light trap is a miniature version of the NJ LT that operates on six volts DC and can be used any wher e. It costs less to purchase than the NJL T, does not re quire AC powe r, a ndc oll e c ts p ri mari ly

mos qu ito e s. Al tho ug h th e rearese ve ral manu fa c tur e rs of CD Clike traps, they

can behandmade by

local mosquito control prog rams forabout onefourth of the retail cost. This cost differe ntial has resulted in a prolifer ation of diffe rent desig ns for the tra

p. It is not i mportant that all control prog rams use the same CDC trap de sig n a s lo ng a s th e sa me mod e l of tr ap is us e d w ith in a

pr og ram. S omemos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams u se c arb on dio xide (e ith e r dry ic e or bo ttl e d g a s) a nd

/or oc te no l a s a supplement for the CDC trap. Some control prog rams oper ate CDC traps f or a f ew hour s a nig ht, a ndoth e r p ro g rams o pe rate the m ov e rn ig ht. Th e ma in r e a so ns fo r the se variations are budg et re lated, rather than e ntomologica l. As with the NJ LTs, there is no stand ardpr oto c ol f

or pla c ing or

op e ratin g CD C tr aps . Th re e pr og rams i n F lorida us e me tho ds oth e r than li g ht t ra ps a s th e ir

princ ipal a du lt mosquito surveillance tool. Pasco County Mosquito C ontrol District (MCD) uses permanently

located unbaited suction traps, while L ee County MCD uses truck tra

ps. A truck tra p is a larg e scr eene d funnel attached to the top of a pickup truc k. Unlike the NJ LT and CDC traps, suction and tr uck tra ps sample all airborne mosquitoes, which pr ov ide s a

be tte r m e a su reof

mos qu ito de ns ity

bu t do e s n ot m e a su rethebiting mos qu ito po pu latio n. L e e Cou nty

MCD ha s o pe rate d tr

uc k tr aps fo r m or e than 3 0 y e ars . T he se data ha ve bee n very

useful for

making control dec isions for saltmarsh mosquitoes in L ee Cou nty . In a dd iti on , L e e a ndPa sc o Co un ty MCD s u se a

ne tw or k o f C DC tr aps to mon ito r m os qu ito po pu latio ns to h e lp i de nti fy loc a lize d mo sq uit o p ro ble ms. St. Luc ie Cou nty MCD re c e ntl y

ha s u se d th e c omm e rc ia lly a vaila ble“ Mo sq uit o M a g ne t” a s th e ir prima ry a du lt m os qu ito c oll e c tio n to ol. Other spe cialized traps ar e used to tra p either spe cific spe cies or a re use d to aug ment collections as pa

rt of an a rbovirus surve illance pr og ram and include the CDC g ravid tra p, re sti ng bo xes, a ndva c uu m a sp ir a tor s. Th e CD C g ravid(R e ite r) tr aps c oll e c t g ravid fema les, including specie s that transmit arboviruses. Esse ntially these tra ps use an “ovilure mixt ure” , org anics in water that attract g ravid fe males that ar e re ady to oviposit
. The hy pothesis is that since these fe males havealre ady blood fed at least once , the c oll e c te d f

e ma le s h a ve a

g re a te r p ro ba

bil ity of ha vin g a n a

rb ov irus pr e se nt i n th e ir sa liv ary g la nd s, makin g pu bli c ri sk a sse ssm e nt e a sie r. A n umb e r o f d if fe re nt “ ov ilu re s” areused, and some attract diff ere nt species, f

or example, hay

infusion for Culex quinquefasciatus, alfa lfa infusion for Ae. ae gypti, and oak le af infusion for Ae. triseriatus
. Resting boxes are used for the collec tion of Cul ise ta and Anopheles sp p. by pr og rams interested in monitoring vector populations. Resting boxes are g ener ally place d on the g round with the open e nd fac ing w est to minim ize the influence of direc t sunlight during thee arl y pa rt of theday . Ada

rk , f or e ste d h abit a t w ithhig h c a no py y ie lds thehig he stC hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 34

collections (Crans 1989). Mosquitoes utili zing re sting boxes as diurnal re sting sites ente r thebo xes d uring themornin g ho ur s, re ma in i na c tiv e du ri ng late mornin g a nde arl y afte rnoon, and the n exitthe boxes later in the day . The inside of the resting box es ar e usually painted blac k or re d, while the outside is painted flat black. The 12” x 12” x 12” ply wood cube s have oneopen end and areusually positioned no closer than 10 f eet f rom one anothe r in either a

line or g rid desig n. Collection from these boxes is usuallyby aspirator and should be c onducted in mid morning to late af ternoon. Vac uum aspirators include swee pers, suc tion traps, and hand- held battery operated flashlig ht aspirators. The se devic es will collect a number of r esting mosquito species and blood-fed mosquitoes in dar k are as and natural ca vities. They areespec ially

g ood for collection in hea vy

veg etation ar ound homes for a ssessing the mosquito problems of customer c omplaints calls if other methods ar e lac king or problematic. Collection of Ma ns on ia and Coq uil le tti dia adults is more difficult, since the larva e ar e associate d with the roots of aquatic veg etation. B oth species a re r eadily collecte d as a du lts in N JL T andCD C tr aps , b ut, to a sse ss the ir po pu latio n f

ro m a qu a tic plant h abit a ts, a mor e dir e c t tr app ing re g ime may be ne e de d. Mo st w or

ke rs us e e me rg e nc e tr aps to c oll e c t Ma ns on ia specie s associate d with water lettuce ( Pistia st ratiotes ) mats. The e me rg e nc e tr aps c ov e r a

kn ow n s ur fa c e are a

(typic a lly

4 me te r s qu are ), a nda du lt collections ar e made on a we ekly basis. Traps a

re g ener ally

space d betwee n 50-100 me te rs apa

rt a ndnu mbe r f

ro m 2- 10 pe r s ite . T ra

ps arepe ri od ic a lly

re po sit ion e d to compensate for the possible depletion of mosquito fauna at 4-8 wee k intervals.
3.4.3 Monitoring Im m ature M osqu itoes I f the de sign of

the mosquito control prog ram include s source reduc tion or application of larvicide s, both a mosquito habitat inventory and a la rval surve illance sy stem should be in p la c e . T he mos qu ito ha bit a t in ve nto ry

is a pe rm a ne nt c oll e c tio n o f d e sc ri pti on s o f all habitats. A larval surveillance sy stem describes the abundance of mosquito l arva e at eac h site. The information can be use d to determine optimal times for use of larval control mea sures, including chemicals, biologica ls, draining , or impounding. It also can be us e d to he lp f

or e c a st the ne e d andtim ing fo r a du lt m os qu ito c on tr ol andto h e lp a sse ss thee ff e c tiv e ne ss o f b othc he mic a l a ndbio log ic a l c on tr ol m e a su re s.
3.4.3.1 Inventory of Mosqu ito Deve lopme ntal Si tes As mosquito control prog rams evolve , topogr aphica l and ae rial pape r maps ar e being repla ced by

g eo-r efe renc ed hig h resolution aerial imag es. The g eo-r efe renc ed maps c an show the location of potential larval ha bitats and the treatments that occurr ed within a specific time frame . These ma ps are used to deve lop and maintain a pr og ram for the su rv e ill a nc e of

larv a e a ndtheapp lic a tio n o f l arv ic ide s. Th e maps pr ov idea n u p- to- date rec ord of the la

rval ha bitats within t he jurisdiction of the c ontrol prog ram. The map inve ntory

should be dy namic and updated on a r outine basis. As new re sid e nti a l or

c omm e rc ia l de ve lop me nts arec re a te d, thec ha ra c te ri sti c s o f m os qu itoC hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 35

habitats may

chang e. In turn, the spec ies composition of mosquitoes produced at eac h s i t e a l s o m aych an ge. Du e t o ch an ges i n ra i n fa l l p at t er n s an di n t en s i t y o f t i d al fl o o d i n g, t h e s e h ab i t a t s c a n v ary g r e a t l y. De c idi ng wh ic h c ha

ra c te ri sti c s o f the larv a l ha bit a t sh ou ld b e re c or de d ina n in ve nto ry is difficult. Instantaneous mea surements of r apidly or fr equently

chang ing va

riables, suc h as water de pth, water

temperature, and prese nce or absenc e of pr edator s or par asites may be usef ul to help determine if c ontrol treatments a re ne eded and should be included in a l ar v a l h ab i t a ti n v e n t o ry. Whil e the f

ield work portion of the initial inventory is tim e consuming , cre ating and maintaining ma

ps of larva l habitats is even more difficult. It is highly desirable to use a c omp ute r- ba se d ma

pp ing sy ste m us ing GI S te c hn olo g y to m ap th e se larv a l ha

bit a ts i f possible. A major advantag e of a computerized mapping sy stem is the ease with which data c an be e x trac ted and c ompiled. Maps can bedisplay ed on scr een or may be printed to highlig ht are as of c oncern.
3. 4. 3. 2 Sam plingIm m atur e St ag e s Th e nu mbe r o f d e vic e s a ndpr oc e du re s th a t have be e n d e ve lop e d to sa mpl e mos qu ito eg g s, larvae , and pupaeis ex tensive (Service 1993) . Unfortunately , littl e ef fort has be en made to standa

rdize the most freque ntly

used methods. Eac h mosquito control prog ram has its own version of the differ ent sampling methods, which make s the comparison of data be tw e e n p ro g rams d if

fi c ult
. 3.4.3.3 Collecting E ggs Th e rearema ny

te c hn iqu e s a vaila

bleto s a mpl e mos qu ito e g g s ( Se rv ic e 19 93 ), bu t th e se methods are seldom used on an ong oing ba sis or as a primary surveillancesy stem. Sa mpl ing mos qu ito e g g s is too la bo r- int e ns ivefo r p ra c tic a l pu rp os e s, a ndit i s u su a lly easie r and simpler to sample mosquito larva e. A f ew pr og rams havefound eg g sampling useful to initiallydescribe or find mosquito habitats to be adde d to the inventory . Once documented, it is usually

easie r and simpler to sample la rvae . One e x ception to the above is the use of ovitraps, whic h monitor the distributi on of the Asian tig er mosquito, Aede s albopictus , and Ae . a e gy pti , in Florida. U sing a

network of

highly attrac tive ovitraps to monitor this s pecie s is easier than sear ching for the sma ll containers in which these spec ies oviposit. S ever al county prog rams used ovitra

ps to detect the initial introduction of Ae. albopictus (H ill sb or ou g h, L e e , L e on , M on ro e , Sa ra so ta , andtheCity of Gainesville). Oncethis species wa s found and subseque ntly established, the ovitra

p collections we re discontinued. Indeed, in c ertain countries whe re the se spec ies area major public hea lth risk for deng ue or y ellow fe ver, nominal data has be en used ( i.e ., abs e nc e/pr e se nc e ) f

or c on tr ol d e te rm inatio ns (M og i e t al
. 1990).C hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 36

3.4.3.4 Collecting L arvae and P upae Mo sq uit o la

rv a e andpu pa e c a n b e c oll e c te d w ithdip pe rs , n e ts, a qu a tic lig ht t ra ps , suction device s (turkey

baster f or bromeliad and container collections), and container

evac uation methods. The most commonly used appa

ratus is the dipper. T he term "sta ndard pint dipper" is used in the scientific literature, but, in prac tice, ther e is no stand arddip pe r o r s tand ard ize d d ipp ing te c hn iqu e s ( Se rv ic e 19 93 ). Th e dip pe r c on sis ts of a w hite plastic cup, 400ml in volume, with a two to five foot handle to allow for an extended rea ch. The dipper c an be use d as a survey tool sim ply

to determine the prese nce or

absenc e of la

rvae . Such a method usually involves taking sever al dipper samples from de signated ar eas in the ha bitat of interest and then counting the larva e captur ed in ea ch dip. The dipping method will vary with water

depth, pre senceof aquatic ve g etation or other debris, and w ater

clarity . Collectors must take into acc ount certain fac tors of importance , e.g. , mosquito species diffe renc e in submerg ing be havior, and stag e diffe renc es (f

irst and sec ond instar stay under long er) . Training , prac tice, and experienceareimportant when c ontrol prog rams use la rval de nsityas a ba sis for larva l control mea sures: L arva e densities mea sures = Number of larva e per

dip. The c ollection of Ma ns on ia and Coq uil le tti dia larva e is difficult bec ause the larva e do not breathe at the water surf acebut ge t their ox y g en by pierc ing the stems and roots of aquatic plants. Coll ection of la rvaeis problematic since they quickly detac h when dis tur be d andbu ry

the mse lve s inthede tritu s. To c oll e c t Coq uil le tti dia larv a e , a pu mp a ndwandsy ste m ha s b e e n u se d ( Mo rris e t al
. 1985) with g ood results. Collection of Ma ns on ia larva e also is difficult and la bor intensive. Samples ar e take n of a know n surfa ce a rea using a stainless steel sampling tool with serrate d teeth ar ound the perimeter of the bottom to penetrate the water lettucemat. This trap has a “tra p door” to c ollect the un de rl y ing wate r c olu mn t o b e c oll e c te d w iththesa mpl e . In th is s y ste m, f ivequ a dr a nts areused per

site and sampled a

pproxi mately

every 30 day s. Another method is to collec t plants randomly

in the field and to plac e them in a buc ket with water for transport. I n the laboratory , the plants areshaken vig orously to dislodge the larva e, and the larva e ar e then conce ntrated throug h a series of sieve s and then c ounted. The numbe r of plants c ollected varie s, but ge nera lly

from 5-10 plants per site ar e used.


### 3 . 5 MONI TO RI NG ENV I RON MENT AL P ARAME TE RS To maxi miz e the use fulness of mosquito surveillance data, it is important to monit or c e rt a in e nv ir on me ntal pa

rame te rs su c h a s r a inf

a ll andtid a l e ve nts . Pr e dic te d ti de le ve ls in coastal a

rea s are monitored using c harts, and tide g aug es ar e usef ul for mea suring the actua l tide. Tidal activity and rainfall dictate w hen hig h marsh sites will be flooded and when they

will need to be inspec ted for mosquito larva e. The tide g aug es also may re fl e c t c hang e s inthewate r l e ve l c aus e d b y rainf a ll andwi ndthat of

te n r e su lt i n incre ased mosquito production in salt marshes and mang rove f orests. Rain g aug es ar e imp orta nt i n b othc oa sta l a ndinl a ndc ou nti e s - - i n f a c t, any wh e remos qu ito pr od uc tio n is being monitored. Data

from these instruments can be supplemented with data from the Natio na l We a the r S e rv ic e a ndloc a l w e a the r w a tc he rs . B e c aus e rainf a ll i n F lorida

is highly localized, it is i mportant to collect rainfall data f rom many

locations.C hapt er 3: I nt egr at ed M os qui t o Sur vei l l anc e Page 37

Knowledg e of w eathe r patterns is important during g round and a eria l mosquit o control applications. Hig h winds, low temperatures, rainfall, and hig h humiditycan de ter the product fr om ge tting to the tar g et, influenc e the disper sal of the mate rial applied, and deter it from rea ching its targ et, there by aff ecting the ef

fica cy of the a pplication.


### 3 . 6 REF ERE NCE S AND G ENE RAL RE ADI NG Crans, W.J . 1989. Procee dings of the Eighty-Sec ond Annual Mee ting of the New Jersey Mosquito Control Association, Inc
. Mo g i, M ., W. Ch oo c ho te , C. Kh a mbo on ru a ng a ndP. Su wanp a nit . 1 99 0. Ap pli c abil ity of pre sence -abse nce and sequential sampling for ovitra p surveillanceof Aede s (Diptera : Culicidae) in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand. Journal of Medical Entomology 27: 509- 514. Morris, C.D., J .L . Callahan and R.H. L ewis. 1985. De vices for sampling and sorting immature Coq uil le tti dia
. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 1: 247- 250. Service , M.W. 1993. Mosquito ecolog y : field sampling me thods, 2nd ed. L ondon and New Y ork: Elsevier A pplied Science
.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 38 

## Ch ap ter 4 MOSQUITO CONTROL THR OU GH S OU RC E R ED UC TI ON

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : D oug C ar l s on a nd D r. G eo rg e O ’M ea ra 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r s : D oug C ar l s on a nd D r. G eo rg e O ’M ea ra
Summ ary So urc e re du c tio n, als o k

no wn a s p hy sic al o r p e rm an e nt c on tro l, t y pic all y is one part of a mosquito control agency's Integrated Pest Manage ment program. Source re duction is usually the most effective and econom ical mo sq uito c on tro l te c hn iqu e an d is ac c om pli sh e d b y e lim ina tin g m os qu ito ha bit ats . Th is e

ffo rt c an be as sim

ple as prop e rlydis c ar

din g wa te rholding containers capable of producing mosquitoes or as comple x as im ple me nti ng Ro tat ion al I

mp ou nd me nt M an ag e me nt o r O

pe n M ar sh W ater Managem ent technique s, which control saltmarsh mosqui toes concurre nt wit h signifi cant habitat restorati on or rehabilitati on. Source reduction is important since it can virtually eliminate the nee d for insecticides in and adjace nt to the affected habitat. The history of mosquito control source reduc tion efforts i n Florida dates back to the 1920s when ditching of high marshes by hand or with explosives occ urred. Since those e arly efforts, other source reduc tion projects include the filli ng of salt marshes and the creation of impoundments. W hile all of these tec hniques had mosquito control benefits, there were e nvironmental im pa c ts. Sin c e the e ar ly 19 80 s, c on c e rte d e ffo rts to re sto re or

re ha bil ita te salt marshes impacted by m osquito control have bee n an ongoing manageme nt initi ative. Source re duction in freshwater habitats ( e.g., floodplains, sw amps, and ma rsh e s) ty

pic all y inv olv e s c on str uc tin g a nd ma int ain ing c ha nn e ls. The se channels or ditches c an serve the dual functions of dewatering an area before mosquito eme rgence can occ ur and as harborage for larvivorous fish. Mosquito production f rom stormwater/was tewater habitats can be a problem but typically c an be manage d by ke eping the area free of weeds through an aquatic plant management program and by m aintaining w ater qu ali ty tha t c an su

pp or t la rv iv orou s fi sh . La stl y , ti re s a re a p ro ble ma tic mo sq uito p ro du c ing ha bit at w hic h c an be ma na ge d b y prop e r d isp os al.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 39



### 4. 1 INTRODUCTION Source r eduction, also known a s phy sical or pe rmane nt control, is typically one part of a mosquito control office’ s I nteg rate d Pest Manag ement (IPM) prog ram. Sourcereduc tion is u su a lly themos t e ff

e c tiv e of themos qu ito c on tr ol t e c hn iqu e s a vaila blea ndis acc omplished by

eliminating larval mosquito habitats. This effort c an be a s simple as p ro p er l y d i s card i n g wa t er -h o l d i n g co n t ai n er s cap ab l e o f p ro d u ci n g Aede s aegypti, Ae. alb op ic tus , or Culex spp., or as c omplex as implementing Rotational I mpoundment Ma na g e me nt ( RIM) . RIM is a so ur c e re du c tio n s tr a te g y that c on tr ols sa ltm ars h mos qu ito e s ( e.g. , Ae. taeniorhync hus, Ae. sollicitans ) conc urre nt with significant habitat restoration. Source re duction is important since it can virtually eliminate the nee d for ins e c tic ide s ina nda dja c e nt t o th e a ff e c te d h abit a t. S ou rc e re du c tio n is app ro priate ly touted for its ec osy stem manag ement ef fec tiveness and e conomic bene fits.


### 4. 2 MOSQUITO PRODUCING HABIT ATS APP ROPRI ATE FO R SOURCE RED UCTION 4.2.1 Containers Containers such a s flower pots, cans, pet bowls, and tires ar e excellent habitats for sever al Aede s and Culex

sp e c ie s. Con ta ine r- inh abiting mos qu ito e s o f p artic ula r c on c e rnin Florida areAe. albopictus and Ae. ae gypti. I n some parts of F lorida Ae. albopictus, a specie s adapte d to and closely identified with the human e nvironment, has bec ome a signific ant mosquito control problem. A container-inha biting mosquito problem can be solved by properly disposing of the standing water in the container s, covering the container s, or tipping them ove r to ensurethat they do not retain water. Many Florida mosquito control ag encie s have e x tensive prog rams to addr ess urban container -inhabiting mosquito problems through house -to-house surveillance and formalized education pr og rams d ir e c te d at e lim inatio n o f c on ta ine r h abit a ts.
4.2.2 F reshwater Lakes, P onds , and Retention Areas Whil e it i s p os sib le to f

ill sma ll a rtif ic ia l po nd s th a t pr od uc e mos qu ito e s, thi s te c hn iqu e is us ua lly imp os sib le in n a tur a l f

re sh wate r a

re a s o r l arg e pe rm a ne nt w a te r b od ie s ( du e to environmenta l constraints) and in a rea s set aside for

stormwater

or wa stewate r re tention. I n these situations, other options are eff ective in c ontrolling mosquitoes including periodic dr ainag e, providing deepw ater sanctua ry for larvivorous fish, minimi zing emer g ent and f

loating ve g etation, and maintaining steep banks. Culex, Coquillettidi a, Mansonia, and Anopheles mosquitoes are f reque ntly produce d in these habitats.
4.2.3 F reshwater Swamps and Marshes Environmental laws g reatly restric t habitat manipulations in freshwater swamps and marshes, making pe rmane nt control there difficult. These are as ar e ca pable of producing Cul ex , A no ph e le s, and Cul ise ta sp e c ie s.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 40

4. 2. 4 Te m por ar ily F loo de d Loc ation s Pastures and a g ricultural lands a re e normous mosquito producers, f reque ntly g ener ating hug e broods of Aede s, Psorophora, and Culex . I mproved drainag e is one e ffe ctive tool for sourc e re duction in these floodwater ha bitats. Another tec hnique is the use of micr ojet irrig ation for those a g ricultural a rea s that requireartificia l watering. F or example, a wate r c on se rv a tio n r e qu ir e me nt i n s omec itr us g ro ve s h a s r e pla c e d f

loo d- ir ri g a tio n w ith micro-jet irrigation, resulting in almost a c omplete disappea ranc e of Ae. v exans in s ome locales.
4.2.5 Salt Marshes I n Florida ' s rec ent past, extensive coasta l salt marshes produc ed enormous Ae de s spp . broods, making coasta l human habitation virtually impossibl e. Sever al of the sour ce re du c tio n e ff

orts d e sc ri be d b e low ha ve g re a tly re du c e d s a ltm ars h mo sq uit o p ro du c tio n in these mar shes throug h intensive manag ement that re lies upon artificia l manipulation of the fre quency

and duration of inundation.


### 4. 3 SOURCE RED UCTION FO R SALTMA RSH MOSQUITO CONTROL 4.3.1 Desc ription of

F lorida's S alt Mar shes Th e fi rs t mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams i n F lorida we rec re a te d inre sp on se to the ne e d to control saltmarsh mosquitoes along are as of the c entra l east coa st with barrier islands and l ar g e a n de x t e n s i v e h i g h s a l tm ar s h e s . A l o n g t h e c e n tr a l e a s tc o a s to f F l o r i d a ’ s e s t u ary, theI nd ia n Ri ve r L a g oo n ( I RL ), me a n d a ily tid a l he ig hts a ndrang e s a resma ll i n comparison to other coasta l are as of the c ontinental United States which e x perie nce much larg er se asonal tidal variations. Seasonal wind-g ener ated water moveme nts can be more important fa ctors than lunar tides in determining maxi mum water le vels. The differ encebetwee n the larg e sea sonal tides and re latively small daily

tides results in a g reater va riability in inundation freque ncy

betwee n low and hig h marsh. Since low marsh is flooded by

the y ear -round daily

tidal chang es and hig h marsh is flooded only by s ea s o n al h i gh t i d es , s tro n g wi n dt i d es , o r r ai n fa l l , a m u ch gre at erp ro p o rt i o n o f h i gh m ar s h co m p ar ed t o l o w m ar s h i s cr ea t ed t h er e. Iti s t h e h i gh m ar s h t h atp ro d u ce s l ar ge numbers of sa ltmarsh mosquitoes and thus is the area targ eted by

most source re duction eff orts. Pr ov os t ( 19 67 ) b ro a dly

c la ssi fi e d F lorida ' s salt m ars he s in to thr e e ma in v e g e tativ e ty pe s: Gr ass Marshes : Gra ss marshes a re ty pical of low ma

rsh habitats and a

re dominate d by Sp ar tin a a lte rn ifl or

a (cor dg rass) or Juncus roe merianus (b la c k r us h) . T he re lativ e ly s m a l l h i g h m ar s h p o rt i o n s o f g r a s s m ar s h e s ar e u s u a l l y v e g e t a t e db y Di sti c hli s sp ic ata or Spartina patens, which can be prolific pr oducer s of Ae . s oll ic ita ns . Are as of transition fr om l ow mars h to hig h ma rs h a reus ua lly na rr ow in g ra ss m ars he s, a s a rethehig h ma

rs h fring ing a re a s th e mse lve s.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 41

Sc r ub M ar she s: Ty

pical scr ub marsh is dominated by Batis mariti ma (saltwort) and Salicornia spp . (g lasswort). Thescrub mar sh can bevaria ble in a cr oss-sectional a

rea a ndus ua lly

lie s b e hin d a

wa ve -a c tio n b e rm

that li mit s in un datio n f

re qu e nc y . T he be rm

is g e ne rally le ss than 1 00 fe e t inc ro ss- se c tio n andc on sis ts o f b ro ke n p art s o f s e a sh e lls , sand, mud, and plant mate rials trappe d and re tained along shorelines by fring ing mang roves. Wave- action berms lim it tidal inundation of the marsh to periods whe n wate r l e ve ls e xce e d me a n h ig h w a te r ( MH W) andthu s c on tribu te to the mos qu ito problems by

reduc ing the periodic natural inundation to approximately six wee ks per y ear . Mangrove Swam ps: Mang rove swamps are pr esent in both low and hig h marsh forms. In t h e l o w m ar s h , m a n g r o v e s w a m p s ar e d o m i n a t e db y Rh izo ph or a m an gle (re d mang rove) , while Avice nnia germinans (blac k mang rove) andLag un c ula ria ra c e mo sa (white mang rove) dominate the hig h marsh. Red mang roves, with their e x tensive prop roots, protec t the shoreline a g ainst erosion and ty pically lie at, or waterwa

rd, of the me an hig h w a te r l ine(M HWL ), e xce pt w he rema na g e me nt p ra c tic e s ( e.g ., imp ou nd me nts ) ha ve a lte re d th e we tlandhy dr olo g y . G e ne rally , a wa ve -a c tio n b e rm

fo rm s b e hin d th is mang rove f

ring e, ef fec tively restric ting tidal inundation fre quency of the more inland sections of the swamp. Due to cur rent rise in sea leve l and anthropog enic f orce s (ditching and artificial inundation activities), the tidal flooding fre quency may be ch an gi n g. L ow a ndhig h ma

rs h v e g e tatio n ty

pe s d if fe r r e g ion a lly . G ra ss m ars he s d omi nate in n orth F lorida . Sc ru b andsc ru b ma rs he s o c c ur

a lon g thec e ntr a l e a st c oa st, ro ug hly fr om S t. Au g us tin e to Ind ia n Ri ve r C ou nty a nda lon g thec e ntr a l w e st c oa st f ro m T a mpa

B a y to Na p l es . Fr o mNa p l es an dS t
. Lu ci e C o u n t y s o u t h wa rd , m an gro v e s wa m p s o r m i x ed h i gh mang rove sc rub marsh dominate coasta l wetlands. B oth scrub mar sh and hig h mang rove swamps produc e saltmarsh mosquitoes, Ae . ta e nio rh y nc hu s, and biting midg es ( Cul ic oid e s spp.), commonly

known as no-se e-ums, in vast numbers if unc ontrolled.


### 4. 4 HISTO R ICA L M ETH OD S OF SOU R C E R ED U C TION IN SALT MAR SH HABI TATS 4. 4. 1 Di tc hing B e g inn ing in the late 19 20 s, dit c hin g of hig h ma rs he s – by handus ing Wor

k Pr oje c ts Ad min ist ratio n ( WPA) wo rk e rs or wi th e xplos ive s –

wa s d on e to d e wate r the mars h wi thi n s e ve ral day s o f r a inf a ll e ve nts . T his ra

pidde wate ri ng pr e ve nte d s uf fi c ie nt time for a dult mosqui to emerg enceby desicc ating the strande d larva e. This technique was of limit ed succ ess bec ause ditche s werenot alway s dug wher e they wer e nee ded most and beca use many of these ditche s werepromptly obstructed, e specia lly

at the ditch-e stuary int e rf a c e . In a dd iti on , f

ishwe reg e ne rally

no t pr e se nt w he rethelarv a e oc c ur re d in sufficie nt numbers to provide a pprec iable contr ol. Furthe rmore, the ditch banks made perf ect sites for

biting midg es to deve lop, exacerbating the biting insect problems for ne arb y c ommun iti e s.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 42

4. 4. 2 F ill ing Du ri ng the19 50 s a nd19 60 s a lon g thec e ntr a l e a st c oa st, pla c ing e arth o r h y dr auli c materia l to fill m osquito-producing are as wa s a common sourc e re duction technique. Howeve r, it was g ener ally too slow and expensive to be ef fec tive. Fissure s and cr acks de ve lop e d indry ing dr e dg e/f ill mate ri a l, p ro du c ing a n a bu nd a nc e of

sa ltm ars h mosquitoes. Environmental reg ulations have virtually eliminated the possibilityof larg escale wetland f

illing bec ause it eliminates this environmentally important habitat. 4. 4. 3 Im pound ing I mpoundment construction beg an in the mid-1950s and c ontinued until the late 1960s. I mpoundments consist of earthen dikes that isolate hig h salt marshes and mang rove swamps from the a djace nt estuary . I mpoundments are g ener ally artificia lly

flooded for mosquito control from May throug h Aug ust/S eptember using w ater

pumped from the adjac ent estuary . I mpounding and artificia l flooding e liminates oviposit ion sites for saltmarsh mosquitoes and biting midg es and is both ef fec tive and ec onomical in reduc ing their populations, with limi ted nee d for a dditional chemical tre atments. Pumping water out of a mosquito-producing dike marsh wa s initi ally attempted as a

source reduc tion technique but wa s unsucce ssful because it was impossible to completely dewater the a

rea befor e mosquito emerg enceoccur red. Th e rewe ree nv ir on me ntal impa c ts r e su lti ng fr om i so latin g a ndfl oo din g the se imp ou nd e d w e tland s in c lud ing int e rf e ri ng wi th the mov e me nt o f w a te r andor g a nis ms betwee n the marsh and estuary , killing indige nous flora, and, in some instances, c hang ing ve g e tatio n f

ro m hi g h ma

rs h to low mars h s pe c ie s. Sin c e thee arl y 19 80 s, the se imp a c ts rec eived c onsiderable scientific and reg ulatory attention resulting in manag ement modifications desig ned to addr ess both mosquito control needs and e nvironmental be ne fi ts. 

### 4. 5 CUR RENT SALT MAR SH SO URC E REDUC TI ON TECHNIQUES 4. 5. 1 Envi r onm e nt al C ons ide r ation s Prior to the 1970s, when the ma jority of mosquito control ditching, f illing, and impoundment construction was c ompleted, mosquito control was usually the primary c on sid e ratio n w he n manip ulatin g sa lt m ars he s. Litt le c on c e rnwa s g ive n to e nv ir on me ntal is su e s b e c aus e thehig h s a lt m ars h w a s n ot c on sid e re d to be e c olo g ic a lly s i gn i fi ca n t
. T o d ay , m i n i m i z i n g ec o l o gi ca l i m p ac t s mu s tb e c o n s i d er ed wh en d es i gn i n g a source reduc tion project and is of pa ramount importancein obtaining r eg ulatory app ro va l. Th e imp orta nc e of

bo th m os qu ito c on tr ol andnatur a l r e so ur c e imp lic a tio ns of sa lt m ars h manipulations is evidenced by the formation in 1986 of the Subcommit tee on Manag ed Marshe s (SOMM) in Chapter 388.46 F lorida Statutes (F .S.). SOMM, a subcommittee of the Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquit o Control (FCCMC), is an advisory g roup re sp on sib le fo r p ro vid ing re vie w andc omm e nt o n s a ltm ars h mana g e me nt p la ns . SO MM,C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 43

orig inally fo rm e d in19 83 a ndc a lle d th e Te c hn ic a l Su bc omm itt e e on Mo sq uit o I mpoundments, has develope d g uidelines for impoundment and mosquito control ditching manag ement plans ba sed on cur rent re sear ch finding s. These g uidelines requir e that mana g e me nt p la ns be writt e n w iththemutua l ob je c tiv e s o f m os qu ito c on tr ol, pr ote c tio n o f f

isha ndwi ldl if

e re so ur c e s, a ndwate r q ua lity e nh a nc e me nt. Th e mos t de sir ablema na g e me nt g oa ls a pp e ar t o b e tho se that atte mpt to m imi c natur a l ma

rs h fu nc tio ns wh ile pr ov idi ng fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol. Th e g oa l of re du c ing ins e c tic ideus e is a fac tor that weig hs heavily in the overa ll manag ement asse ssment equation.
4. 5. 2 Di tc hing D i t c h i n g c a n b e u s e di n s a l tm ar s h o r f r e s h w a t e r l o c a t i o n s t o c o n tr o l m o s q u i t o e s b y: 1) enhanc ing dr ainag e, thus eliminating mosquito-produc ing sites 2) allowing larvivorous fish a cce ss to mosqui to habitats that can beenhanc ed thr ou g h th e c re a tio n o f p e rm a ne nt w ate r b od ie s w hic h a c t a s f ish rese rvoirs Over the past 30 y ear s, rotary

ditching, a s part of an Open Ma rsh Water Mana g ement (OMWM) sy stem, has bee n implemented on both the ea st and west coa sts of the U.S. Rotary ditching involves the construction of sha llow ditches, usually throug h g rass or scrub mar shes, typically

four f eet wide and two to threedeep, using high- speed r otary equipment which br oadca sts spoil evenly over the marsh surf

ace . A ditching network fre quently

connec ts shallow ditches to permane nt water habitats whethe r they

areponds or canals. Where it is impossi ble or imprac tical to connec t to major water way s, a pe rm a ne nt p on d is c on str uc te d d e e p e no ug h to ho ld w a te r thr ou g ho ut the y e ar. Th e se ponds harbor

fish, and ra dial ditches conne ct the mosquito-producing locations to the pond. Resear ch demonstrating some of the ec ologic al ef

fec ts of rotary

ditching w as c on du c te d o n F lorida ' s w e st c oa st i n Ch arl ott e Cou nty a nda lon g theno rthe rnI RL in Br evar d and Volusia Counties. A we ll-desig ned proje ct avoids deposition of spoil that would alter the hy drog raphy of the ditche d wetland a

rea s.
4.5.2.1 Benefits of

a P roperly De signed Rotary Ditc hin g P lan Rotary ditching is g ener ally

considere d more e nvironmentally acc eptable than deep d i t ch i n g ( e.g., dr a g lin e ) b e c aus e sp oil mate ri a l f ro m th e se sh a llo w d itc he s is e ve nly distributed in a very

thin lay er ove r the mar sh surfac e – instead of acc umulating on the mars h s ur fa c e a s b a nk s o f s po il. Con se qu e ntl y , th e pr ob le m of inv a sio n o f e xotic veg etation is eliminated. I mpacts to g rass or shr ub veg etation ar e usually

limit ed to the ditch are a itself, as the low-g round pre ssure tra ctor will climb over the ve g etation allowing it to spring bac k, causing littl e dama g e. Mar sh ditching se ems to aff ect the ve g e tatio n a s a

top -dre ssi ng of

dirt mi g ht a ff

e c t a la wn . E xpe ri e nc e ha s r e pe a te dly demonstrated that a prope rly desig ned rota

ry ditching sy stem can g reatly decr easethe ne e d f or larv ic ideapp lic a tio ns on thea ff e c te d ma rs h. Rot ary

dit c hin g c a n b e c os tC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 44

eff ective and of lower

manag ement intensity

when use d in appropriate ar eas and wher e larva l habitats are widely scatter ed.
4. 5. 2. 2 Envi r onm e nt al R isks of R ot ar y D it c hing Rot ary dit c he rs br oa dc a st s po il i nd isc ri min a te ly a ndc a n th ro w d e bris g re a t di stanc e s; there fore , g reat car e is nec essary when wor

king in c ong ested a

rea s. I n loose soils, the siz e and sha

pe of the finished ditch will not be maintained due to e rosion from water movement throug h the ditch. The de pth fix es the width of the ditch; ther efor e, a sha llow ditch is also narrow . Concerns ha ve bee n raised a bout the possible marsh hy drolog ical c hang e s ( i.e. , d e wate ri ng ) that may oc c ur fr om the ins ta llatio n o f r ota ry dit c he s. Th is conce rn has be en addr essed ty pically throug h the installation of ditch sills, t he tops of which ar e usually

set at mean high w ater . The installation of sills can re sult in water b e i n g r e t a i n e di n t h e d i t c h a n do n t h e m ar s h s u r f a c e ; h o w e v e r , t h i s r e s u l ti s n o ta l w a ys the ca se, and some de watering of the marsh may

still occur . Thoug h more fr equent flooding of the mar sh could conc eivably alter soil salinities (by

reduc ing hy

persa line conditions), the possible impacts to the benthic invertebrate populations have not be en tho ro ug hly

inv e sti g a te d. Soi l sa lin ity c hang e s a lso may

a lte r n a tiv e plant c ommun iti e s, althoug h the introduction of some non-native plants is restricted by marsh ele vation. Rotary ditching pr ojects in Volusia County have not e x perie nced native veg etation c hang e s p os t e xca vatio n. Gr a ss m ars he s c on tin ue to t hriveimm e diate ly

a dja c e nt t o ro tary dit c he s.
4. 5. 2. 3 Ro ta r y- Di tc hing App lic ation s Ba sic limit ations on the use of r otary ditching r evolve a

round the size of the ditch neede d, soil types, ac cess, a djace nt terrain, and exist ing ve g etation. Good mar sh type c a nd idate s f

or ro tary dit c hin g inc lud e g ra ss m ars he s, dr e dg e sp oil s, te mpo ra ry g ra ssy ponds, scrub mar sh, and savannas. Are as with sandy loose soil are not g ood ditching candidates. Ditch cle aning or new construction is possible in area s of limited woody ve g e tatio n, if

plann e d c are fu lly . E xpe ri e nc e ha s sh ow n th a t po orly e ng ine e re d o r p oo rl y maintained ditches, e specia lly ones that bec ome disconnec ted from a permanent wate r body , can pr oduce mor e mosquitoes than pre construction conditions, as is true f or any permanent control proje ct. En vir on me ntal r e g ulatory a g e nc ie s g e ne rally

a llo w r ota

ry dit c hin g of

imp ou nd me nts be c aus e thi s p ra c tic e us ua lly re du c e s in se c tic ideus e a nda llo ws theimp ou nd me nt t o remain open to tidal exchang e, re sulting in the exchang e of or g anisms for a long er pe riod of the y ear . I n some ca ses, it allows the impoundment to be opened pe rmane ntly . Rotary dit c hin g pr oje c ts a

reus ua lly un de rt ake n b y

mos qu ito c on tr ol o ff

ic e s a ndre qu ir e pe rm its from the Army

Corps of Eng ineer s (ACOE), the Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Pr ote c tio n ( F DE P) , and

/or a loc a l w a te r m a na g e me nt d ist ri c t ( e.g. , St. J ohns River Water Ma na g e me nt D ist

ri c t) , a lon g wi th l oc a l c ou nty app ro va l.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 45

4.5.3 Im poun dm ents I mpounding ha s been use d extensivelyalong Florida ' s central east coa st for mosquito and biting mid g e c on tr ol. Th e princ ipl e is s imp le : ke e pin g a sh e e t of wate r a c ro ss a

sa lt mars h s ub str a te pr e ve nts Aede s spp. mosquitoes and biting midg es fr om oviposit ing (l a y ing the ir

e g g s) on the se oth e rw isea ttr a c tiv e so ils . O n an impo un de d ma rs h, mos qu ito and biting midg e contr ol is effe ctively achie ved with a minimum of insecticide use
. 4. 5. 3. 1 Env ir onm e nt al R isks of Im pound ing Be fore the 1970s, mosquito control considerations outweighe d natura l resourc e conc erns in high mar sh communities. This si tuation was due both to the urg ent public hea lth need to control tremendous sa ltmarsh mosquito broods and to the lack of unde rstanding of the ecolog ical sig nificanc e of w etlands. In the 1950s and 1960s whe n impoundment c on str uc tio n o c c ur

re d, little wa s kno wnabo ut the imp orta nc e of hig h ma rs he s a ndthe ir role in estuarine produc tivity . Historically , black and white mang roves, Ba tis , and Sa lic or nia dominated many

high ma rshes that we re impounded. The se plants cannot sustain continual unreg ulated flood he ights, whe re the succule nt plants or black mang rove pne umatophores a re c ompletely

inundated. During the early y ear s of impounding, water leve ls were maintained at an elevation that kill ed virtually all the exis ting ve g etation in some locations. This result left some impoundments barr en of veg etation for many

y ear s, except wherered mang roves intrude d. Also, the perimete r virtually eliminated the natur al movement of w ater and org anisms betwee n the marsh and ad j ac en tes t u ar y . M ar s h tra n s i en t s , t h o s e o rga n i s m s t h atu s e t h e h i gh m ar s h d u ri n g a portion of their life c y cle [ e.g. , Elops saurus (lady fish), Ce ntr op om us un de c im ali s (snook), Megalops atlanticus (tarpon) , Mu gil spp. (mullet)], were e x cluded f rom the impounded marshes, primarily during the hig h fall and w inter tidal period e x perie nced on the ce ntral ea st coast of F lorida.
4.5.3.2 Benefits of

a P roperly De signed Impound m ent Managem ent P lan Ba sed on re sear ch conduc ted during the 1980s and 1990s, RIM is curre ntly considere d themos t f

a vo ra blea ndve rs a til e ma na g e me nt t e c hn iqu e that pr ov ide s th e g re a te st p ub lic benef it. RI M acc omplishes mosqui to control while still allowing the mar sh to function in a nea rly natura l condition for much of the y ear . RI M is impl emented by installing culverts with water c ontrol structures throug h impoundment dikes to allow seasonal ma na g e me nt v ia

fl oo din g a nda

c on ne c tio n b e tw e e n th e mars h ande stu ary du ri ng there st of they e ar. Pumps areins ta lle d to a llo w s umm e r f loo din g of

themars h s ur fa c e wh e n it would normally

be dry . Culverts serve as pathway s for tidal exchang e, rainfall runoff , nutrient exchang e, and or g anism movement betwe en the e stuary and the we tland. I nte ns ivesa mpl ing ha s sh ow n th a t f ishus e the se c ulv e rt s a s in g re ss ande g re ss p oin ts t o the impounded marsh and that these mar shes now serve as nur sery habitat for mor e than 10 0 s pe c ie s o f j uv e nil e fi sha ndma c ro c ru sta c e a ns . Culverts are strateg ically

distributed around a

dike at appr ox imately

500-900 foot int e rv a ls, or

on e fo r e ve ry

te n to fi ft e e n a c re s o f w e tlandare a , inor de r t o a pp ro xima te natur a l ti da l e xch a ng e rate s a ndto m e e t w a te r q ua lity stand ard s. Mo st f

a vo ra bleC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 46

locations areg ener ally

sites wherenatura l tidal cree ks occur red or wher e flushing will be optimiz ed or e venly

distributed. Culvert invert elevations are g ener ally set at -1.0 f

eet NGVD ( National Ge odetic Ve rtical Datum) so that they contain water at low tide in an e stu ari ne sy ste m, w he rewate r l e ve ls typic a lly re a c h 0 .0 fe e t N GV D at lo w t ide . A t th is elevation, max imum flow-rate s can beachie ved at MHW levels (c ulverts flowing at 67% fu ll) . Cu lve rt s a

rele ft op e n d uring thefall, wi nte r, a ndmos t of thesp ri ng . In th e late sp ri ng , th e c ulv e rt s a

rec los e d andre ma in s o th ro ug h late su mme r/ e arl y fall ( themos t productive mosquito season) , during which time the mar sh is artificially flooded. Th e wate r c on tr ol s truc tur e s atta c he d to thec ulv e rt s a llo w the mars h f loo din g he ig ht t o be re g ula te d to a min imu m he ig ht n e c e ssa ry fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol. Wat e r l e ve ls exceeding control heig ht automatically spill outinto the estuary

throug h overf

low structure s, thus preventing damag e to marsh ve g etation from e x cessive w ater levels or a c idi fi c a tio n p ro c e sse s. Du ri ng thec los ur e pe ri od(e a rl y sp ri ng thr ou g h late summer/early

fall), the impounded ma

rsh is flooded by

tide, rainfall trapping , and the pumping of

water as nee ded fr om the adjac ent estuary using e ither stationary

elec tric or po rt abledie se l- drive n p ump s. Pumpin g c e a se s, a ndthec ulv e rt s a reop e ne d inlate summer/early

fall to allow the sea sonally occur ring fall hig h tides to flood the marsh. Ma rs h tr a ns ie nt o rg a nis ms e nte r andle a ve themars h o n th e se tid a l e ve nts
. M o d i fi ca t i o n s t o t h es e s t an d ar dp ro t o co l s i n cl u d e: co n t i n u o u s s u m m erp u m p i n g t h ro u gh op e n o r p artia lly

op e n c ulv e rt s o r c omb inatio ns of we ir s a ndbr e a c he s in c or po rate d in to thesu mme r w a te r c ir c ulatio n p ro g rams. Th e late st e ff orts t arg e tin g mars h f

loo din g wi th p u m p s o r w at erci rc u l at o rs ar e d es i gn ed t o i n u n d at e t h e m ar s h fl o o r a n dt ak e a d v an t age of natural tidal ex chang e, thus aug menting the natura l tidal inundation frequenc y of a m ar s h d u ri n g t h e l o w- wa t er , m o s q u i t o -p ro d u ct i o n p er i o d
. C o n t i n u o u s p u m p i n g t h ro u gh open or pa

rtially -open c ulverts (e mploy ing f lap-g ates, bottom-wate r re lease g ates, e tc.) allows org anism exchang e betwe en the e stuary and the impoundment during the manag ement sea son. This arrang ement is espec ially benef icial to summer transient sp e c ie s su c h a s ta

rp on . E xce ss p ump ing c re a te s w a te r turno ve r r a te s th a t r e su lt i n improved water qua lity , enhanc ing biodiver sity , and prote cting wetlands fr om acidific ation by

preve nting f

reshwater build-up. Further be nefits of a rtificial pumping include prote ction of we tlands from exotic species invasion and e nhance ment of mang rove g rowth rates and produc tivity . New te chniques a re be ing tried such a s circ ulating w ater

into remote ar eas of

the marsh, and then using weirs to dire ct it back out of thema rs h. Us ing wate r c ir c ulator s to sli g htl y aug me nt o r “ fi ne sse ” hig h ti de s to achie ve we ekly

inundation of the we tland also is being desig ned and te sted. RIM a c hie ve s mu lti pu rp os e ma na g e me nt b y a llo wi ng theimp ou nd me nt t o: 1) c on tr ol s a ltm ars h mo sq uit o p ro du c tio n w ithmin ima l in se c tic ideus e 2) promote survival a nd re- veg etation of native plant specie s by maintaining open periods and sufficie ntly low water

levels during the summer flooding period to protec t plants with li mited water level heig ht toleranc esC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 47 3) help pre vent exotic plant incursion into wetlands 4) a llo w m ari ne lif

e to u se thepr e vio us ly

un a vaila bleimp ou nd e d h ig h ma

rs h I n o rd e r f or a g ov e rn me ntal mo sq uit o c on tr ol o ff ic e or private de ve lop e r t o imple me nt a RI M plan, it usually

is reviewe d and endor sed by the SOMM beforebeing revie wed by the permitti ng ag encie s. The ag encie s involved in RI M permitting include the ACOE, theF DE P, the loc a l w a te r m a na g e me nt d ist ri c t ( e.g. , the St. J ohns or South Florida Water M a n a g e m e n tD i s tr i c t ) , a n dt h e l o c a l c o u n t y g o v e r n m e n t
. W h e n u n d e rt ak e n b y a g overnme ntal mosquito control office, some streamlining of the pe rmitting proc ess for RI M projects ha s occur

red unde r permitti ng chang es adopte d in 1995. Under F lorida’s ne wl y de ve lop e d E nv ir on me ntal Re so ur c e Pe rm it ( ERP ), a No tic e d G e ne ral Pe rm it i s no w g rante d to mos qu ito c on tr ol o ff ic e s f or theins tallatio n o f c ulv e rt s inimp ou nd me nts fo r n on -m iti g a tio n e nh a nc e me nt p ro je c ts. Whil e so me re vie w o f the pr oje c t is sti ll nece ssary , this streamlined permit proc ess spee ds up the reg ulatory revie w proc ess.
4. 5. 4 Cur r e nt

Effor ts in Sa lt

M ar sh M ana ge m e nt RI M manag ement and r otary ditching a s described above aremarsh mana g ement techniques that are well ac cepte d by both mosquit o control ag encie s and those ag encie s responsible for

protec ting natural re source s. Virtually all of the IRL

marshes ha ve bee n impacted in some way ; theref ore, manag ement diver sitymay be the be st soluti on for the future. T owar d that g oal, SOMM participate d in a projec t to develop re g ional manag ement plans for

I RL impoundments and marshes. This planning projec t reg ionalized the lag oon into ten manag ement ar eas and assig ned ea ch mar sh an optimal ma na g e me nt s c e na

ri o b a se d o n c ur

re nt b e st m a na g e me nt i nf ormatio n. I n a dd iti on to RIM a ndOM WM utili zing ro tary dit c hin g , a

pp ro priate te c hn iqu e s in c lud e a mon g oth e rs : open mar sh-lag oon connec tion, RI M modifications with near- continual pumping during thec los e d p e ri odfo r w a te r q ua lity imp ro ve me nt, RIM mana g e me nt w ithmod if ic a tio ns to enhanc e wa ding bir d fee ding opportunities, waterf owl manag ement, and stormwater rete ntion. This planning docume nt provides assistanceto gove rnmental a g encie s and private de ve lop e rs fo r s pe c if ic mars he s ta

rg e te d f or ma na g e me nt. Ho we ve r, a s a lw a y s, rec ommendations made today can c hang e tomorrow a s further scientific information be c ome s a vaila

ble . ( Se e Ap pe nd ix I

fo r a lis t a ndde sc ri pti on of

re c og nitionof

mos qu ito control prof

essionals for the ir sourcereduc tion efforts that take into acc ount environmenta l considerations.)


### 4. 6 SOURCE RED UCTION I N FRESHWATER HA BI TATS Source r eduction for

mosquito control in freshwater ha bitats typically

involves constructing and maintaining channe ls (ditches) to re duce mosquito production in ar eas such as f loodplains, swamps, and marshe s. The princ iple that direc ts source r eduction work e ntails manipulating water leve ls in low-ly ing a rea s to eliminate or re duce the need fo r i ns e c tic ideapp lic a tio ns .C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 48

Two diffe rent mosquito control strateg ies areconsidere d when pe rforming f reshwater source reduc tion. One strateg y involves reduc ing the amount of standing water or re du c ing thele ng th o f time that w a te r c a n s ta ndin l ow are a s f oll ow ing sig nif

ic a nt r a inf

a ll events. This ty

pe of strateg y

involves constructing channe ls or ditches with control elevations low enoug h to allow for a certain amount of water to lea ve an a rea before immature mosquitoes can c omplete their life c y cle. Another strateg y

involves constructing a main ce ntral ditch with smaller late ral ditche s at the lowest ele vations of intermittently wet ar eas to serve as a

larvivorous fish re servoir. As rainf all incre ases, f

ish move outward to adja cent a rea s to prey

on immature mosquitoes, and as water leve ls decre ase, f ish retre at to the ditches. Weirs ar e c on str uc te d inma in d itc he s to de c re a se wate r f low , d e c re a se e me rg e nt a qu a tic we e ds , preve nt depletion of the water table , and allow f ish y ear -round r efug e. I n Florida , most construction of sourcereduc tion projects occ urre d betwee n the 1940s throug h the mid-1960s. I nitially , these drainag e proje cts wer e desig ned to re duce the production of Anopheles m o s q u i t o es an dl o we r t h e i n ci d en ce o f m al ar i a. L at er , d ra i n age projec ts were constructe d to help control other ve ctor a s well as nuisanc e spec ies. L ocal mosquito control ag encie s wanting to construct drainag e proje cts had to obtain appr oval from the state mosquito control office, origina lly located in the F lorida State B oard of He a lth(F SB H) . E nto mol og ic a l data to s up po rt

/ju sti fy theme ri t of

pr oje c ts a lon g wi th desig n specific ations had to be provide d to obtain approva l. Once pr ojects we re approve d by

the State, construc tion and maintenanc e ac tiviti es we re r eg ulated by the State to ensure c ompliance with g ood mosquito control practice s. I n addition, for a period of mor e than twe nty -five y ear s, a spec ific ty pe of f inancial aid – State I I

Aid – wa s p ro vid e d to loc a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol o ff ic e s to su pp le me nt c os ts a sso c iate d w ith c on str uc tin g a ndma int a ini ng so ur c e re du c tio n p ro je c ts. Currently , very

few , if any , mosquito control offices a re involved in c onstruction of new draina g e proje cts bec ause of environmenta l restrictions associated with obtaining permits. Howeve r, seve ral mosquito control offic es ar e involved in maintenanc e wor k on exis ting dr ainag e sy stems. This maintenance includes cutting , mowing, or the application of he rbicides to over g rown ve g etation and e x cavating built up spoil material. Florida law provide s a permit ex emption for mosquito control maintenanc e ac tiviti es. Th is m a int e nanc e e xemp tio n a llo ws mos qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc ie s to ma int a in the sy ste ms, provided that their sizes ar e not expanded bey ond orig inal desig n specific ations. One imp orta nt p ro vis ionof

thee xemp tio n s tate s th a t up to 1 0, 00 0 c ub ic y ard s o f s po il mate ri a l c a n b e e xca vate d f ro m a pr oje c t w ith ou t a

pe rm it, pr ov ide d th a t th e mate ri a l is deposited on a se lf-contained upland site. Over the past seve ral de cade s, urban de velopment has oc curr ed in ar eas of Florida wher e mos qu ito c on tr ol draina g e dit c he s w e retheprima ry dr a ina g e sy ste ms. I f the se sy ste ms areexpanded to meet modern stormwater manag ement spec ifications, mosquito control ma int e nanc e e xemp tio ns areno lon g e r v a lid . In many c a se s, ma int e nanc e re sp on sib ili ty for mosquito control projec ts has been ta ken over by city and county

public works de pa rtme nts a ndint e g rate d in to the ir c omp re he ns ivesto rm wate r m a na g e me nt p ro g rams.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 49



### 4 . 7 ST ORMWAT ER AND WAS TE WATE R MANAG EME NT (S e e Ap pe nd ix I I

fo r a de sc ri pti on of

Vo lus ia Cou nty Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol' s sp e c if ic stormwater

plan.) Florida larg ely depends on pota

ble wate r pumped fr om aquifer s supplied by rainfall. Much of F lorida is flat with sandy soils resulting in a va

riety of per colation rates and water table depths. The se cha

rac teristics make the manag ement of stormwater and wastew ater

very important, and poor e ng ineering and construction – or imprope r ma int e nanc e – c a n r e su lt i n c on sid e ra blemos qu ito pr ob le ms. Fr om a leg islative perspe ctive, very littl e has be en done to pr event the pr oduction of disease ve ctor or nuisa nce mosquitoes fr om either stormwater or w astewater fa cilities. Was te wate r f

a c ili tie s a rere g ulate d u nd e r F DE P. T he c ur re nt t re ndof e lim inatin g sma ll packa g e plants and hooking into reg ional sy stems has helped. Stormwate r is reg ulated by F D E P o r th e ap p r o p r i a t e w a t e r

m a n a g e m e n t

d i s tr i c t , c o u n t i e s , a n dm u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In 1 9 8 2 , t h e F l o ri d a D ep ar t m en to f H ea l t h an dR eh ab i l i t at i v e S er v i ce s (F DH R S ), t h ro u gh the ef forts of William Opp, and the Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Reg ulation (F DE R) de ve lop e d th e orig inal F lorida c ri te ri a fo r c on sid e ri ng mos qu ito pr ob le ms re s u l t i n g fr o ms t o rm wa t erfa ci l i t i es . T h e 7 2 -h o u r r ec o v er y p er i o das s o ci at ed wi t h d es i gn criteria for r etention and f ilter/under- drain sy stems was put into the rule at the sug g estion of HRS solely

to minim ize mosqui to production. A f e w c ou nti e s andmun ic ipalit ie s h a ve la ng ua g e pr oh ibi tin g mos qu ito pr od uc tio n in stormwater

treatment fac iliti es. This lang uag e wa s larg ely due to the ef

forts of William Opp of HRS in the late 1970s and e arly 1980s to develop g uidelines for e ng ineering mosquito-free fac iliti es. Volusia County Mosquito C ontrol built upon t his work in the early 1990s by developing their own loca l Be st Manag ement Prac tices (B MP) for Mosquito C ontrol in St ormwate r Mana g ement F acilities (See A ppendix I I ). Currently , the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (EPA) is involved in permitting sto rm wate r m a na g e me nt a s it re late s to Mu nic ipal Se pa rate Sto rm

Se we r S y ste ms (M S4s ) andthedis c ha

rg e of Sto rm wate r A sso c iatio n w ithI nd us tria l A c tiv ity . T he se permits repr esent an expansion of Florida' s State/W ater Manag ement District stormwate r prog ram in that they

addre ss exi sting sy stems – not justnew de velopment. The impac t on mosquito control is ex pecte d to be re latively minor, since these permits do not typically requirethe installation of structura l controls such as r etention or de tention ponds for c ompliance. Resear ch into mosquito problems associated with stormwate r and w astewater fa cilities has bee n limit ed. Dr . Geor g e O' Mear a of the University of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ri c ultur a l Sc ie nc e , F lorida Me dic a l E nto mol og y

L abo ratory

(FME L ) p e rf

orme d s ome stu die s inthe19 80 s o n w a ste wate r t re a tme nt f

a c ili tie s. Dr . Fre d Santana of Sara so ta CountyMosquito Manag ement also studied stormwate r mana g ement fa cilities and a sso c iate d mo sq uit o p ro ble ms. A f e w o the r r e se arc he rs a lso ha ve loo ke d in to this problem as we ll.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 50

Currently , there is a wide rang e of mosquitoes produc ed in these f acilities including floodwate r Aede s and Ps orop ho ra spp. in intermittentlywet fa cilities, Culex and Anopheles specie s associate d with permane nt or semi permanent wet f acilities, and Mansonia, and Coq uil le tti dia specie s associate d with floating or eme rg ent veg etation. The Ae de s, Ps orop ho ra , M an so nia and Coq uil le tti dia sp e c ie s a rethemos t pe sti fe ro us to humans. Mosquito control efforts in infested are as include la rviciding , veg etation manag ement, her

bicide applications, barrier treatments, Ultra L ow Volume (U LV) adulticiding, stoc king w ith larvivorous fish, and the installation of re servoirs f or larvivorous fish. Eng ineering de sign c an eliminate mosquito production from stormwater and wastew ater fa c ili tie s, bu t no t a lw a y s e a sil y . Pe rm a ne nt w a te r p on ds c a n b e ke pt c le a n o f w e e ds wi th wate r q ua lity

su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

mos qu ito -e a tin g fi sh . D ry fa c ili tie s c a n b e de sig ne d to dry down in three day s to prevent f loodwater mosquito production, but som e standing wate r b e y on d th e thr e e -d a y pe ri odmay

oc c ur du e to i nte rm itt e nt r a inf

a ll c omm on to Florida in the summer.
4. 7. 1 Co nc lusi ons
• I deally , all ag encie s involved in reg ulating stormwater and wastew ater fac iliti es sh ou ld a ddla ng ua g e strivi ng to m ini mize , and , w he repo ssi ble , e lim inate mos qu ito production. In addition, a method for r esolving problems in maintaining c ompliance wi t h t h i s go al i s d es i rab l e, b u tt h i s re s u l tm ayb e d i ff i cu l tt o ac h i ev e d u e t o t h e l ar ge nu mbe r o f f

a c ili tie s. Partne rs hip s b e tw e e n s tate a ndloc a l g ov e rn me nt a g e nc ie s ( in particula r loca l field inspectors) could be be nefic ial in helping to mee t compliance require ments. Resear ch is nee ded to establish testing /monitoring tec hniques and thresholds to allow applicants, operator s, and indepe ndent inspectors to de termine c omp lianc e wi th m os qu ito re du c tio n g oa ls.

• Al l a g e nc ie s in vo lve d inre g ulatin g sto rm wate r andwa ste wate r f a c ili tie s sh ou ld rec og nize that some wetland planting s, while providing habitat for f ish and wildlife as well as other

ecolog ical func tions, can cr eate mosquito l arva l habitat. This problem should be taken into ac count in eng ineering a sy stem desig n with veg etation that does not contribute to mosquito problems.

• Th e resh ou ld b e state re c og nize d andpu bli sh e d B MPs fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol i n stormwater

and wa stewate r mana g ement fa cilities. These B MPs would provide an e du c a tio na l to ol g uid ing de sig ne rs , b uil de rs , andop e rator s. Vo lus ia Cou nty Mo sq uit o C o n tr o l h a s s u c h a

p o l i c y . S e e A p p e n d i x II.

• Mandatory

mosquito bi ology

and contr ol training should be part of all stormwater

and wa ste wate r c e rtif

ic a tio n p ro g rams.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 51

Finally , mosquito problems in st ormwate r and w astewater fa cilities are e asy to preve nt a ndso me tim e s e a sy

to f ix. T he app ro a c he s a

reno n- c he mic a l a nde nv ir on me ntally se ns iti ve , andthe y

ha ve thepo te nti a l to re du c e mos qu ito po pu latio ns in all a re a s. 

### 4. 8 MOSQUITOE S ASSOCI ATED W IT H WA STEWATER I n many pa rt s o f F lorida , c le a n f

re sh wate r f

or do me sti c , a g ri c ultur a l, o r i nd us tria l us e s is becoming a critical resour ce. Wastew ater rec y cling and re use help to conse rve and reple nish freshwater supplies. F loridians produceapproximately 100 g allons of wa ste wate r p e r c apit a

e a c h d a y fr om d ome sti c so ur c e s a lon e . Co nc e rnfo r w a te r q ua lit y c on dition s inlake s, ri ve rs , andmari ne are a s h a s r e su lte d inthee na c tme nt o f n e w s tate laws that will g reatly

limitfuture disposal of

wastew ater

into these aquatic sy stems. To adjust to these chang ing c onditions, m any communities must i mplement wastew ater re us e a ndre c y c lin g pr og rams. Mo sq uit o p ro ble ms a refr e qu e ntl y

a sso c iate d w ithso me conventional wa stewate r treatment techniques, and the expanded use of wastew ater re c y c lin g a ndre us e may

ina dv e rt e ntl y

c re a te e ve n mo remos qu ito ha bit a ts.
4.8.1 Dom estic Wast ewater 4 . 8 . 1 . 1 S ep ti c S y s te ms I n 2008, 31% of F lorida' s households use on-site tre atment sy stems such as septic tanks and assoc iated drain fields. Wit h proper soil porosity , sufficie nt latera l fields, and low hu ma n c on g e sti on , th e se sy ste ms a resa fea nde ff

ic ie nt. Th e wa ste wate r i n a pr op e rl y located and maintained septic tank sy stem will percolate into the subsoil wit hout causing a su rf a c e wate r a c c umu latio n th a t may ind uc e mos qu ito pr od uc tio n. Ye t, w he n th e se sy stems are place d in locations with inappropriate soil conditions, wastewater will flow latera lly , often into nea

rby swales and ditches, thus providing eg g laying substrates for Culex spp. 4.8.1.2 P ackage P lants Some centra l wastewater fa cilities in Florida ar e re latively small, treating less than 10 0, 00 0 g a llo ns of

wa ste wate r d a ily . In s omeins ta nc e s a sma ll s y ste m kn ow n a s a packa g e plant can be used by private c ompanies whe n establishing ne w subdivisions and related deve lopments. Howeve r, this arrang ement has be come much le ss common as re g ulatio ns re qu ir e su c h d e ve lop me nts to u se larg e tr e a tme nt f a c ili tie s. Som e of

the se remaining pa ckag e plants provide ina dequate wastew ater treatment because they

are po orly ma int a ine d o r o pe rate d b e y on d th e ir c apa c ity . G e ne rally , p a c ka g e plants dis c ha rg e tr e a te d w a ste wate r i nto sma ll h old ing po nd s. Whe n th e se po nd s r e c e ivepo or ly treated waste water , mosquitoes may become abundant, e specia lly when the ponds a

re inv a de d b y

a qu a tic plants . I f a e rator s, pu mps , andre late d c omp on e nts of pa c ka g e plants arenot functioning properly , then mosquito production may not be conf

ined to just the holding ponds.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 52

4.8.1.3 Large Tre atm ent F acilities L arg e tre atment fa cilities have lar g e holding ponds that are less likely to be invaded by mosquitoes than the smaller ponds assoc iated with pac kag e plants. Ofte n, major mosquito problems associated with larg e municipal and c ounty wastew ater

treatment fac iliti es ar e conf

ined to the advanced tr eatment pha se of the ove rall proc ess. Tec hniques used to improve water qua lityconditions bey ond the levels obtaine d in the se c on da ry tr e a tme nt p ro c e ss i nc lud e sp ray ir ri g atio n, ra

pid -dry po nd s, a qu a tic plant/wa ste wate r s y ste ms, a ndtheus e of natur a l or

mod if ie d w e tland s.
4 . 8 . 1 . 4 S p ra y -I rr i g a ti o n S y s te ms Se c on da ri ly tr e a te d w a ste wate r i s u se d to ir ri g a te g olf

c ou rs e s, ro a d me dians , p a stu re s, sod fields, citrus g roves, and other ty pes of c rops. During the rainy season, it is not uncommon for spray

fields to become waterlogg ed, particularly those in low-ly ing a

rea s with high water table s or in poorly draine d soils. Under these c onditions, t he continued application of spr ay

irrig ation will result in the acc umulation of surfac e water, thus pr ov idi ng a qu a tic ha

bit a ts f or a va ri e ty of mos qu ito sp e c ie s.
4. 8. 1. 5 Ra pid- Dr y P onds ve r sus Hol ding P onds Rapid-dry

ponds are classified a s dry -re tention sy stems. I n these sy stems, water flows int o th e po nda ndthe n p e rc ola te s in to the so il. B y

c on tr a st, ho ldi ng po nd s a reprima ri ly flow-throug h sy stems. Typically , water enter s and lea ves the holding pond in some type of pipe. Soil percolation is an optional featurein holding ponds. Due to the reg ular inf low of wa ste wate r, ho ldi ng po nd s a reno rm a lly

fu ll andthu s r e pr e se nt a

ty pe of we tde te nti on sy ste m. R apid -dry po nd s th a t f

a il t o dry fa st e no ug h p ro du c e mos qu ito problems similar to those found in are as whe re surfac e water ha s acc umulated from excessive spray

irrig ation.
4 . 8 . 1 . 6 W a s te w a te r/Aq u a ti c Pl a n t S y s te ms At so me wa ste wate r t

re a tme nt f

a c ili ty po nd s inF lorida , c e rt a in s pe c ie s o f a qu a tic plants ( e.g. , water

hy acinths) ha ve bee n added f or nutrient re moval and biomass produc tion. Mosquito problems result in this type of sy stem if the inflow is inadequately treated. Effe ctive nutrient re moval require s periodic ha rvesting of a portion of the aquatic plants.
4. 8. 1. 7 W e tl ands Sub je c t to re g ulatory

pe rm itt ing , s e c on da

ri ly tr e a te d w a ste wa

te r c a n b e pu mpe d in to wetland a rea s. Earthe n dikes often a re use d to increa se the water re tention capa city of we tland s th a t arere c e ivi ng tr e a te d w a ste wate r. Th e re sp on se s o f m os qu ito po pu latio ns to wastew ater

inundations vary

depending upon the type of w etland. Fo r e x am p l e, co as t al s al tm ar s h es an dm an gro v e s wa m p s ar e n o t ed fo r p ro d u ci n g l ar ge broods of pe stiferous mosquitoes. Hig hly eff ective mosquito control has be en ac hieved by surrounding these bra ckish wetlands with dikes and then flooding the enc losed are a.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 53

Usually brac kish or fre shwater

is used, but impoundments at a few loc ations have be en operated ef

fec tively with seconda

rily treated waste water

as the influent. Th e va ri ou s ty pe s o f f re sh wate r w e tland s inthe ir natur a l c on ditionpr ov idesu ita ble a qu a tic ha

bit a ts f or a va ri e ty of mos qu ito sp e c ie s. Ad din g tr e a te d w a ste wate r t o th e se aquatic sy stems rare ly

reduc es mosquito production and often c hang es the re lative abu nd a nc e of

dif fe re nt p la nt s pe c ie s a ndthea sso c iate d mo sq uit o s pe c ie s.
4.8.2 Agricultural and In dus trial Waste water Many commerc ial operations have on-site tre atment fa cilities for dec rea sing nutrie nt loa ds in w a ste wate r andg e ne rally us e te c hn iqu e s si mil ar t o th os e app lie d to do me sti c wastew ater . The quantityof wa stewate r produc ed at some c ommercia l locations, such as those proce ssing c ertain crops, may be hig hly varia ble during the y ear . There fore , the amount of surfa ce w ater

in the holding ponds or spr ay fields used in the wa stewate r tr e a tme nt m a y

fl uc tuate c on sid e ra

bly , th e re by

c on tribu tin g to the pr od uc tio n o f c e rt a in sp e c ie s o f f

loo dw a te r m os qu ito e s. Was te wate r f ro m f e e d lo ts anddairy

ba rn s o ft e n is pla c e d inho ldi ng or

se ttl ing po nd s w ith ou t a ny prior tr e a tme nt. Se ve ral mo sq uit o sp e c ie s o f the g e nu s Culex c a n b e c omee xtre me ly

abu nd a nt i n th e se po nd s, e sp e c ia lly in the abse nce of

aquatic plant control.
4.8.3 Major

P est and Disease-V ect oring Sp ecie s 4.8.3.1 Culex Th ro ug ho ut muc h o f s ou the a ste rnUn ite d St a te s, thedo min a nt s pe c ie s o f m os qu ito in w a s t e w a t e r

p o n d s a n dl a g o o n s i s u s u a l l y Culex quinquefasciatus . M a jor e xce pti on s to this pattern occ ur in both central and south Florida w here Cx. nigripalpus is often seasona lly

more a bundant than Cx
. quinquefasciatus . Especia lly in the southern half

of peninsular F lorida, Cx. nigripalpus is usually the dominant wastew ater Culex in the su mme r andfall, wh e re a s Cx
. quinquefasciatus is more common in the winter and spring
. Hu ma n a c tiv iti e s a

rere sp on sib le fo r e sta

bli sh ing theva st m a

jority of thea qu a tic ha

bit a ts u s e db y Cx. quinquefasciatus , the southern house mosquito. A much wider rang e of l ar v a l h ab i t a t s , i n c l u d i n g b o t h art i f i c i a l a n dn a t u r a l a q u a t i c s ys t e m s , i s u s e db y Cx. nigripalpus . I n larg e wa stewate r ponds, immature Cx
. quinquefasciatus areg e ne rally mo stabu nd antnearth e in fl ow a rea wh ere t he n ut ri entlo ads are t ypi cal lyhi ghest . By contra st, imm ature Cx. nigripalpus aremore e venly distributed in wastewater ponds. Cx. salinarius , another

common mosquito i n wastew ater , is simi lar to Cx. nigripalpus in its rang e of la

rval ha bitats, but it s seasona l pattern of a bundanceis simi lar to Cx
. quinquefasciatus
. Cx. salinarius inhabit not onlysemi-permanent ponds but also more e p h e m e r a l h a

b i t at s , s u c h a s t e m p o r ary p o o l s i n s p r a y i rr i g a t i o n f i e l d s . O c c a s i o n a l l y, immature Culex restuans may become common in a waste water sy stem. Fortunately , Cx
. restuans populations are ina ctive during much of the y ear in most of peninsular Florida. Cx. salinarius is the most pestiferous waste water Culex beca use it fee ds mainly

on ma mma ls, wh ile fe ma le s o f the oth e r thr e e sp e c ie s a ree ith e r g e ne ralis ts o r p ri mari lyC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 54

avian f eede rs. Cx
. nigripalpus is the species of g reatest interest bec ause it is the do min a nt Culex

in F lorida

du ri ng thesu mme r andfall, oc c ur s inwa ste wate r s y ste ms varying w idely

in nutrient loads, and is the primary vector of St. L ouis ence phalitis virus (SLEV) and West Nile virus (WNV).
4.8.3.2 Aedes and Ps or

op hor a Unlike Culex , whose e g g s hatch within a fe w day s after being laid in rafts on the w ater surfa ce, Aede s and Ps orop ho ra specie s lay the ir e g g s in div idu a lly

on moi st s ub str a te wi th hatching occur

ring only afte r the e g g s have be en floode d. Consequently , Aede s and Ps orop ho ra areseldom found in wastew ater sy stems wherethere is lit tle or no variation in s ur fa c e wate r l e ve ls. Ho we ve r, po orly de sig ne d, imp ro pe rl y

op e rate d, or

ina de qu a te ly maintained sy stems often lea d to conditions that are ideal for an inva sion by floodwate r mos qu ito e s. Poo rl y

dr a ine d s pr a y -i rrig a tio n f ie lds of te n b e c omewate r l og g e d, e sp e c ia lly during the rainy

season. Unde r these c onditions, m any broods of Ae. vexans and Ps
. columbiae can beproduce d in a sing le sea son. L and application of wastewater may incre ase the salt content of the soils and c ause inland sites to bec ome suitable for saltmarsh mosquitoes. Ae. sollicitans ha s b e c omea ma jor pe st s pe c ie s at so me wa ste wate r d isp os a l or

re c y c lin g sit e s.
4.8.3.3 Ma nso nia and Coq uill e tti dia I mmature Ma ns on ia dy ar i , Ma ns on ia titil lans , and Coq uil le tti dia perturbans do not breathe at the water surf

ace ; rather , they

obtain ox y g en fr om the root hairs of va rious specie s of aquatic plants and may stay attache d to the plants for e x tended pe riods. I mmature Ma. dy ar i arefound almost exclusivelyin association with water lettuce, Pi sti a stratiot es , w he re a s Ma
. titil lans use seve ral spec ies of aquatic plants, notably water hy acinth ( Ei c ho rn ia crassipes ) andwate r l e ttu c e . Ro ote d andfl oatin g c a ttails ( Typha spp.), espe cially

floating mats, are the principa l host plants for Cq. perturbans
. Of these three mosquito species depe ndent upon aquatic plants, Cq
. perturbans is the mos t a g g re ssi ve bit e r. It is a n o pp ortun ist ic blo odfe e de r, oc c a sio na lly takin g mul tip le blood meals. These behavior al traits enhance the mosquito's potential for ve ctoring certain viruses. Ma. dy ar i areless likely to fee d on humans than ar e Ma
. titil lans
. Neve rtheless, at locations where Ma
. dy ar i is ex tremely abundant, the spe cies may be an important component in the enzootic cy cle of St. L ouis ence phalitis (SL E) transmissi on.
4.8.4 Mosquito Control The be st approac h to manag ing mosquitoes in waste water sy stems is ini tial avoidanceby incorporating f

eatur es into the desig n and oper ation of wa stewate r treatment sy stems that will either pre clude or

g reatly limitmosquito production. Special attention should be direc ted to the items listed in the remainder of Section 4.8.4.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 55

4.8.4.1 Operating Capacity Many sy stems provide inade quate wa stewate r treatment because the amount of inflow reg ularly exceeds tre atment ca

pacity . Treatment fac iliti es must be desig ned and constructe d to handle cur rent and future de mands that arebased on r ealistic projec tions. Moreove r, fa cilities need to be pr operly maintained to pre vent any loss in operating capa city . Although w astewater tre atment is expensive, cutting c osts by overloa ding treatment fac iliti es is counter productive in the long term.
4.8.4.2 Water

Quali ty Was te wate r s ho uldre c e ivea t le a st a g oo d s e c on da

ry tr e a tme nt andpr e fe ra

bly so me a dv a nc e d tr e a tme nt b e fo reit i s p la c e d inde te nti on/r e te nti on are a s. L a ndapp lic a tio ns , such as irrigation projects, should be used to compleme nt rather than substitute for g ood seconda ry treatments. Poor water qua lityis a major fa ctor c ontributing to Culex mosquito problems. I mproved sec ondary and advanced tr eatments de cre ase the likelihood of Cx
. quinquefasciatus and Cx
. nigripalpus ovipositi on, make ha bitats more suitable for f

ish and other mosquito predators, and incr easethe ef fec tiveness of va

rious mos qu ito larv ic ide s.
4. 8. 4. 3 We t- De te nt ion P onds I n w e t- de te nti on po nd s, larg e po nd s a remuc h mo rede sir ablethan s ma ll o ne s ( i.e ., tho se with < 0.1 ac re of

surfa ce a rea ). In fac t, small ponds and various types of wa stewate r holding tanks may

requiresurfa ce a g itation from a sprinkler or an a erator to deter i n v a s i o n b y Culex

mosquitoes. Pond banks should be relatively steep with a minimum water depth of at least two fee t. Methods for pre venting seepa g e should be incor porate d into the desig n and construc tion of holding ponds. Water le vels in wet-de tention ponds should be kept constant. If ponds must be draine d for maintenance, the y should be equipped f

or ra pid and complete dr ainag e. The se drainag e/re fill episodes should be infreque nt. Debris and e x cessive ve g etation should be re moved from the banks and shoreline. Thesurfa ce of wet-de tention ponds should be kept fre e of f loating and immersed aquatic plants. The deliber ate introduc tion of aquatic plants, such as water hy a c inths fo r b iom a ss p ro du c tio n o r w a te r q ua lity imp ro ve me nt, sh ou ld b e lim ite d to ponds rec eiving g ood seconda rily or advanced tr eate d wastew ater . When plants are use d for nutrie nt removal, they must be protecte d from insec ts, pathog ens, and c old weathe r; otherwise, the dead plants will release nutrients back into the we t-detention pond and incre ase the likelihood of mosquito production. P lant harve sting sche dules must be a dju ste d f or va ri a tio n inse a so na l g ro wth p a tte rn s. F a ilu reto h arv e st the plants on tim e also incre ases the c hance s for a mosquito out brea

k.
4. 8. 4. 4 Dr y- Re te nt ion Ar e as : R api d- Dr y P onds and Sp r ay -I r r iga ti on F ie lds I n th e ory , th e wa ste wate r a pp lie d to ra

pid -dry po nd s a ndfi e lds sh ou ld r apid ly pe rc olate i n t o t h e s o i l s o t h a ts u r f

a c e w a t e r i s p r e s e n tf

o r b r i e f p e r i o d s ( l e s s t h a n a

f e w d a y s )
. In prac tice, standing water

is often pre sent for long er pe riods. Even if 90 to 95% of the wa ste wate r r apid ly

e nte rs theso il, theamou nt o f s ur fa c e wate r r e ma ini ng c a n c aus eC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 56

major mosquito problems. Dry -re tention are as must be re stricted to sites with soil and wate r t ablec on dition s th a t w ill a llo w f or thera pidabs or pti on of a ll w a ste wate r. Th e rate of application needs to be a djusted for sea sonal patterns in rainfall and water table and for long -term c hang es in the soil's w ater holding c apac ity
. Depr essions, potholes, and re lated irre g ularities should be re moved from dry -pond bottoms and spray -irrig ation fields. Gra ss-cove red sy stems should be mowed without cre ating tire ruts, and thecuttings should be r emoved. Eve n when r apid-dry ponds and spray -irrig ation fields oper ate satisfactorily , seepa g e to adjac ent lowlands may cre ate or a g g ravate mos qu ito pr ob le ms. Th e re fo re , th e de sig n o f dry -r e te nti on are a s sh ou ld inc lud e pr ov isi on s f

or a de qu a te dr a ina g e in n e ig hb oringare a s.
4. 8. 4. 5 We tl ands Environmental mandates and budg et constraints may g reatly limitthe use of a quatic plant manag ement or mosquito larvicide s in freshwater we tlands that rec eive wa stewate r. Ba seline information on mosqui to production should be obtained f ollowing wa stewate r input. Acce ss roads should be madeavailable so that all major sec tions of the wetlands can bemonitored periodically for mosquitoes. I f plans call for deliber ately adding aquatic plants to a wetlands/waste water sy stem, avoid using plant species that pr ovide espec ially favor able micr ohabitats for mosquitoes. F low rate s and nutrient loading should not ex cee d the ca

rrying c apac ity

of the a rea . Wetlands rece iving wa stewate r should be locate d away

from re sidential and commer cial ar eas. Future de velopment sh ou ld b e lim ite d to ma int a in b uf fe r zo ne s.
4.8.4.6 Larvicides S e v e r a l d i f

f e r e n tt yp e s o f

l ar v i c i d e s ar e a v a i l ab l e f o r c o n tr o l l i n g m o s q u i t o e s . G e n e r a l l y, these larvicides ar e lea st effe ctive in waste water sy stems. The flow- throug h nature of many wastew ater

treatment, reuse, and rec y cling operations rapidly diminis hes the e ff e c tiv e ne ss o f m a ny

larv ic ide s. B a c te ri a

a ndoth e r c omp on e nts of wa ste wate r q uic kly brea k down or inac tivate some larvic ides. I ncre asing the dosag e rate and the numbe r of app lic a tio ns or

us ing slo w- re le a se fo rmulatio ns may be re qu ir e d to a c hie ve a de qu a te control. At sites wher e mosquito outbreaks a re la rg e and f reque nt, larvicides may pr ov ideon ly

te mpo ra ry c on tr ol andmay

no t bec os t- e ff

e c tiv e . L arv ic ideop e ratio ns mus t be supported w ith a quality inspection prog ram. Potential mosquito production sites must be identified and f

reque ntly inspected. L arvic ide applications should be integr ated with other mosquito abatement mea sures, such a s aquatic plant manag ement and w ater quality improvement. L arvic ides should not interfer e with the leve l of mosquito control alre ady provided by

natura l predators and par asites.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 57



### 4. 9 AQUA TI C PLANT MAN AGEMENT AN D THE EF FE CTS ON MOS QUI TO P OP ULA TI ONS Th is s e c tio n d e sc ri be s th e pr a c tic e s u se d to c on tr ol m os qu ito e s a nda qu a tic plants a sso c iate d w ithfr e sh wate r e nv ir on me nts on ly . Sa ltm ars h e nv ir on me nts aredis c us se d in other sec tions of this chapter. C er t ai n m o s q u i t o s p ec i es u s e v ar i o u s aq u at i c p l an t s as a p ri m ar y h ab i t atfo r e gg de po sit iona ndlarv a l de ve lop me nt. B e c aus e a qu a tic plants c a n, a t ti me s, pr od uc e he a vil y veg etated sta nds, the use of c onventional mosquito manag ement tec hniques, such as biological and che mical control, may be inef fec tive. There fore , remova l of the habitat may be theon ly

me a ns of re du c ing the semos qu ito po pu latio ns to a de sir e d le ve l. Aquatic plant mana g ement in Florida can have a positive effe ct on the contr ol of mos qu ito po pu latio ns . Aprima ry g oa l inre du c ing mos qu ito e s th a t us e a qu a tic plants is to e ra dic a te or , at th e ve ry le a st, ma na g e thea qu a tic plant c ommun iti e s at th e low e st fe a sib le le ve l.
4.9.1 Mosquitoes The thre e most important mosquit o specie s that use aquatic plants in Florida a re Ma. dy ar i, M a. tit ill an s, and Cq. perturbans . The following descriptions are take n from the Florida Mosquito C ontrol Handbook. Ma ns on ia d

y ar i is f ou ndin p e rm a ne nt l ake s a ndpo nd s. Th is s pe c ie s is mos t c los e ly a sso c iate d w ithwate r l e ttu c e bu t a lso oc c ur s o n w a te r h y a c inth , picker el wee d ( Po nte de ria ), and a

rrowhe ad ( Sa git tar ia ). The e g g masses ar e attac hed to wate r lettuce leave s and, af

ter hatching , the larva e and pupa e attac h permanently to the roots, g etting the ir oxy g e n f ro m th e plant tiss ue s. Th e fe ma le s w ill bit e hu ma ns bu t se ldo m be c ome pests. I n Panama, this specie s is a major vec tor of SLE, but its relationship to the SL EV in Florida is unknown. Mansonia titil lans is a lso fo un d inpe rm a ne nt l ake s a ndpo nd s. Th is s pe c ie s is mos t closely associate d with water

hy acinth but also occ urs on wate r lettuce , picker el wee d, and ar rowhe ad. This tropica l species is found only in the southern half

of the state. T he e g g ma sse s a

rela id o n th e un de rs ideof fl oatin g le a ve s, a ndthelarv a e a ndpu pa e a tta c h to and derive their oxy g en fr om the roots. It can be a pest to humans nea r its larval ha

bitats. I n So uthAm e ri c a , th is s pe c ie s is a ma jor ve c tor of Ve ne zue la n e qu inee nc e ph a lit is. Coquill ettidia perturbans is f ou ndin p e rm a ne nt l ake s a ndpo nd s w ithc a ttails , s e dg e s, maidencane (and other Panicum g ra sse s) , andarr ow he a d. Th is l arg e bla c k andwh ite mosquito i s a seve re pe st in inl and F lorida. The immaturestag es ar e found in e stablished permanent fre shwater

marshes c ontaining e merg ent veg etation wher e ther e is a lay er of detritus on the marsh bottom. The e g g s are laid in a ra ft on the water surf aceand the imm a tur e fo rm s atta c h to thero ots of thee me rg e nt p la nts . T his a g g re ssi ve mos qu ito is a c tiv e fo r s ho rt

pe ri od s at du sk

a ndc omm on ly

fl ie s th re e to f

ivemil e s f

ro m it s a qu a tic habitat, often muc h further . Fe males bite both humans and birds. This spec ies is anC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 58

important vector of

easte rn equine ence phalitis (EEE) to humans throug hout the easte rn U.S. where ver it is associate d with Cul ise ta m e lan ur a . 4.9.2 Aquatic P lants The thre e most important aquatic plants that provide mosquito habitat in Florida ar e water lettuce, water hy acinth, and c attails. The following descriptions are re printed fr om the Aquatic Plant Identification Deck b y V i c t o r

R a m e y. Water lettuceis a floating plant. Ex perts disag reeas to whethe r water lettuceis native or ha s b e e n in tr od uc e d. Wat e r l e ttu c e oc c ur s inla ke s, ri ve rs , andc a na ls, oc c a sio na lly forming larg e densemats. As its name implies, water le ttuce re sembles a f loating he ad of lettuce . The ve ry

thick leave s are light dull g ree n, hairy , and ridg ed. The re a re no le af sta lks . Wate r l e ttu c e ro ots arelig ht- c olo re d andfe a the ry . Its f low e rs areinc on sp ic uo us . Wa te rhya c int h is a floating plant. This exot ic nuisanceplant g rows in all types of fre shwater . Water hy acinths vary in siz e fr om a fe w inches to more than threefee t tall. T h e y h a v e s h o w y l a v e n d e r f l o w e r s . W a t e r

h ya c i n t h l e a v e s ar e r o u n d e da n dl e a t h e ry, a tta c he d to sp on g y

a ndso me tim e s in fl a te d s ta lks . T he plant h a s d ark fe a the ry ro ots
. Ca tt ail s areamong the most common of all aquatic plants. They can r eac h eig ht or more fe e t ta ll andg ro w p ro lif

ic a lly fr om thic k u nd e rg ro un d r hizo me s. Cattails of

te n d omi nate larg e are a s, e sp e c ia lly

wh e rewate r l e ve ls f

luc tuate . Cattails g e t th e ir name fr om the ir cy lindrical flowe r spikes that can be more than one f oot long. Theflower

spikes are densely packe d with tinyflower s. Cattail leaves a re stra p-like, stiff, and r ounded on the back. T he lea ves ar e sheathed tog ether at their ba ses and a

ppear to be flattene d from the side. L eave s are straig ht in the bottom half but twistand spiral in the top half
. 4.9.3 Surveillan ce I f a du lt Mansonia arediscovere d throug h routine surve illance, a thoroug h survey

of the immediate ar ea should be conducte d to locate f reshwater sourc es containing water hy acinths and/or w ater

lettuce. If a suspe cted f

reshwater sourc e is found, a la rval surve y sh ou ld b e c on du c te d. I f d istur be d, thelarv a e a tta c he d to plant r oo ts w ill imm e diate ly rele ase and fall to the bottom of the wate r. As a r esult, a mosquito dipper is an i n ap p ro p ri at e s am p l i n g t o o l
. A go o dm et h o dfo r c o l l ec t i n g Ma ns on ia larva e is to place a shallow pan unde r the floating a quatic veg etation. Care must be taken not to disturb the a qu a tic plants or

su rr ou nd ing are a . O nc e thepan is in p la c e , it a ndthea qu a tic plant mus t be lif te d s low ly

ou t of thewate r. Cle a n w a te r m a y ne e d to be a dd e d to thepan to acc urate ly

view and c ount any

mosquito l arva e. This method re quires a g reat deal of patienceand pra ctice. Cq. perturbans can f

ly sever al miles from their larval habitat. The ref ore, a more wi d es p re ad s u rv eyo f f

re s h wa t ers o u rc es co n t ai n i n g ca t t ai l s m ayb e n ec es s ar y . T h e e ggs a ndlarv a e of

thi s mo sq uit o u su a lly

arefo un d inthede tritu s at th e ba se of thea qu a tic plants. A mosquito dipper or siphon can be used to collec t the larva e. Howe ver, theC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 59

water may need to beplace d in a pan c ontaining c lean water for acc urate viewing and co u n t i n g.
4.9.4 Mosquito Control Measure s The use of

biological control methods, such as mosquito fish, is usuallynot effe ctive for mosquitoes associated with aquatic plants. The aquatic veg etation is too dense for predators to gain acc ess to the mosquito larvae. For Ma ns on ia and Coq uil le tti dia , chemical control methods, such as the la rvicides Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is ( Bt i ) andAb a te , may be e ff e c tiv e if thepr od uc t is ® applied dire ctly

to the are as containing mosquito larvae . This application may be difficult and labor

intensive if the aquatic veg etation is dense. Monomolec ular surf ace films are not e ffe ctive under all climatic and ha

bitat situations found in Florida. I n g ener al, conve ntional mosquit o control methods ar e not ef fec tive tools in reducing mos qu ito e s a sso c iate d w itha qu a tic plants
. 4.9.5 Aquatic P lant Managem ent Me asures Er a dic a tio n o r m a int e nanc e le ve l c on tr ol o f a qu a tic plants is the be st m e tho d o f m os qu ito control for Mansonia and Coquill ettidia sp e c ie s. Th e rearethr e e ba sic ty pe s o f a qu a tic plant m a na g e me nt: Chem ical control involves the use of a quatic her bicides to era dicate or

manag e the aquatic ve g etation. Depe nding on the amount and ac cessibility of the ve g etation, a backpa ck, truc k-mounted, boat-mounted, or airc raf t-mounted spray er c an be use d. The aquatic he rbicides use d arespecific for the a quatic plants. Diquat is used to control water lettuce, a 2,4-D amine is used for water hy acinths, and g lyphosate is primarily used for c a ttails . Ch e mic a l c on tr ol c a n b e c os t e ff e c tiv e if thea qu a tic plants arema na g e d at a ma int e nanc e le ve l. Biologi cal contr ol involves the use of insec ts or pathog ens to era dicate or manag e the a qu a tic plants . T he wate r l e ttu c e we e vil a nd wate r h y a c inth b e e tle ha ve be e n u se d w ith limit ed succ ess. At pre sent, there is no effe ctive biolog ical contr ol for cattails. There have be en a f

ew suc cessf

ul larg e-sc ale biolog ical applications to date. Howeve r, more re se arc h is ne e de d to a de qu a te ly a ddre ss s omeof

thepr ob le ms a sso c iate d w iththi s technique. B iological control has prove n to be very cost eff ective. Mec hani cal contr ol is a

me tho d inwh ic h e qu ipm e nt o r t oo ls a reus e d to ph y sic a lly re mov e thea qu a tic ve g e tatio n. Exa mpl e s in c lud e a qu a tic ha rv e ste rs , b uc ke t c rane s, underw ater

wee d trimmers, and mac hetes. Mec hanica l control is limi ted to are as that ar e easily acc essible to the equipment. Also, mec hanica l control can be labor intensive and extremely expensive.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 60



### 4 . 1 0 WAST E T I RE P ROG RAM I N F LO RI DA 4.10.1 Tires as Mosquito Pr oducers Ti re s h a ve pr ov ide d f

a vo re d mo sq uit o h abit a ts s inc e thefi rs t di sc ard e d ti refi lle d w ith wate r. Was te tir e s h a ve be e n le g a lly a ndill e g a lly

a c c umu latin g in F lorida

fo r the pa st sever al dec ades. Theleg al ac cumulations usually take the sha

pe of a somewhat org anized pile containing up to several mill ion tires. I lleg ally dumped tires may

be scatter ed about f

rom singletires to piles containing 40,000 to 50,000 tires. Unfortunately , most of the problem tires a re not in larg e piles but arerathe r scattered about, making remova l difficult and, at be st, labor intensive. Th e de sig n o f tir e s ma

ke s th e m id e a l si te s f

or pr od uc ing se ve ral sp e c ie s o f m os qu ito e s, a ndso me of

the se mos qu ito e s a

reimp orta nt d ise a se ve c tor s. Th e 20 -8 0 r ulepr ob ably app lie s to wa stetir e s. Of themos qu ito pr ob le ms a sso c iate d w ithwa stetir e s, it i s sa feto say that 20% of the tire s are responsible for 80% of the pr oblem. Until the mid-1980s, waste tires we re c onsidered mor e of a nuisance and envir onmental threat than the possible foci of mosquito-bornedisease e pidemics. This situation chang ed in 1985 when a

substantial population of Ae . a lbo pic tus wa s d isc ov e re d in Houston, Texas. I t is probable that this population arrive d from Japan as eg g s deposited i n s i d e u s e dt i r e s . In 1 9 8 6 , t h i s s p e c i e s w a s f o u n di n a n i l l e g a l t i r e p i l e i n J a c k s o n v i l l e . It wa s f ou ndin 6 2 c ou nti e s in19 91 a nd , b y 19 94 , w a s e sta

bli sh e d ine ve ry

c ou nty in Florida
. The potential importanc e of Ae. albopictus and wa ste tires bec ame a ppare nt in J une 1991 when a dult specimens collec ted from a larg e tire pile in Polk Countytested positive for the ea stern equine ence phalitis virus (EEEV). This discove ry called attention to a problem of e normous mag nitude. Discar ded automobile and tr uck tires a

re the pref

err ed habitat of Ae. albopictus . Ch e mic a l tr e a tme nt o f tir e pil e s to c on tr ol e ith e r l arv a l or a du lt sta g e s is muc h mo redif

fi c ult than mo st r ou tin e app lic a tio ns a ndmay no t befu lly eff ective. Shre dding tire s – or otherw ise rende ring them incapa ble of holding water

and supporting mosquito production – is pref era ble to attempting c hemical c ontrol. Howeve r, larg e piles, such a s the one in Polk County , may contain an e stimated 4.5 milli on tires, and it may

take two or

more y ear s to complete the shre dding and cleanup proce ss.
4. 10 .2 Wa st e Tir e Di spo sa l R e gul ation s I n an ef fort to promote re cy cling , slow the g rowth of landf ills, and reducepollution, a compre hensive solid-wa ste bill was enac ted in 1988. This leg islation empowere d FDE P to r e g ulate thesto ra g e , tr a ns po rt a tio n, pr oc e ssi ng , anddis po sa l of wa stetir e s. Un de r this bill, no one is allowed to have morethan 1,500 tires except at a solid-waste mana g ement fac ilityor a w aste tire pr ocessing fac ility . Transporters ar e re quired to re g ister ea ch truc k used to haul tires with F DEP, dump onlyat appr oved locations, and maintain rec ords for thr e e y e ars of

wh e retir e s w e reob ta ine d andfi na lly de po sit e d. Pr oc e sso rs wi th f ixed -s ite fa c ili tie s a

rea llo we d to ha ve mor e than 1 ,5 00 wa stetir e s insto ra g e bu t mu st c omp lyC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 61

with storag e standa

rds set by the Waste Tire Rule, Chapte r 62-711 of the Florida Administrative Code. L andfills areallowed to collec t all tires broug ht in but mus t have the tires on hand pr ocesse d every 90 day s. L andfills areallowed to bury tires that have been c ut into eighths or smaller piece s. Most landfills have the tires shre dded to a foursq ua re -i nc h s ize that th e y

c a n u se a s d a ily

la nd fi ll c ov e r. Th e F DE P a lso is i nv olv e d in e lim inatin g thestate ' s la

rg e , il le g a l ti resit e s. I f a

sit e ow ne r i s u na

bleor un wi lli ng to abate the site, FD EP can g ain possession of the site throug h the court, proce ss and remove the tires, and se ek re covery of costs. The leg islation also established a wa ste tire fe e of $1 c ollected on e ach ne w tire sold at retail. The waste tirefeeg ener ates more than $21 million annually , which g oes into the Solid W aste Mana g ement Trust Fund. Of this amount, approximately 31% is allocate d eac h y ear to small counties (ones with a population less than 100,000) as a c onsolidated g rant t o b e us e d f

or g e ne ral r e c y c lin g pu rp os e s, inc lud ing wa stetir e ma na g e me nt. I n addition, up to 11% of the wa ste tire fe es ar e allocated to local mosquito control ag encie s for a

bating and providing mosquito control relating to waste tire sites, other tire pil e s, a ndwa stede bris s ite s id e nti fi e d a s mo sq uit o p ro du c ing are a s. On ly mos qu ito control ag encie s approve d by Florida Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s (F DA CS) may

re c e ivethe se fu nd s. F DA CS r e c e ive s a pp ro xima te ly

$2 .2 mil lio n to administer these pr og rams. Dire ct over sight of the prog ram is the re sponsibili ty of the Bur eau of Entomology

and Pest Control, Mosquit o Control Section. Cur re ntl y , 6 1 a

pp ro ve d mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams r e c e ivestate a id. I n a dd iti on to a ll oth e r s tate fu nd s, e ve ry

app ro ve d mo sq uit o c on tr ol o ff ic e is e lig ibl e to r e c e iveMo sq uit o C o n tr o l G r a n tf

u n d s . If m o r e t h a n o n e l o c a l m o s q u i t o c o n tr o l p r o g r ame x i s t s i n a c o u n t y, the funds ar e spilt evenly

betwee n them. Ea c h mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g ram r e c e ivi ng Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol Grant f un ds is r e qu ir e d to submit a monthl y

report of its control activities. The re port provides suff icient inf ormatio n to de te rm ineho w the fu nd s a rebe ing us e d ande ns ur e s a de qu a te a tte nti on to pr op e r e xpe nd itu rea ndoth e r r e late d e le me nts of thepr og ram. D uring F Y 0 5/0 6, state app ro ve d mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams r e c e ive d a pp ro xima te ly

$1 .8 mil lio n inMo sq uit o Control Grant funds. The y rec eived a

pproxi mately

the same amount in FY 06/07. Since the ena ctment of the Solid Waste Act of 1988, F DEP has cleaned-up morethan 22 wa stetir e sit e s th a t c on ta ine d mo rethan f ivemil lio n ti re s. Th is e ff ort r e du c e s th e wa ste tir e pr ob le m to a

mor e ma na g e ablele ve l bu t do e s n ot alle viate themos qu ito pr ob le ms cause d by the many thousands of tires scattered throug hout the state that havebeen illegally discarde d to avoid dumping f ees. This situation is where mosquito control prog rams can make a

rea l differ ence . During the first two y ear s that mosquito control ag encie s participate d in the waste tire prog ram, they wer e re sponsible for the c ollection and re moval of appr ox imately 730,000 discarde d tires. The re moval of wa ste tires can help re duce populations of Ae. albopictus and the thre at of deng ue, possibly

easte rn equine ence phalitis, and y ellow fe ver. H oweve r, as tire sC hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 62

dis app e ar f

ro m th e e nv ir on me nt, themos qu ito e s th a t f ou ndthe m a n attr a c tiv e ha bit a t w ill qu ic kly a da pt t o a lmo st any

ty pe of wate r- ho ldi ng c on ta ine r. I n th e fi na l a na ly sis , premise sanitation is t he key to controlling c ontainer- producing mosquito problems. Mo sq uit o c on tr ol w or

ke rs ha ve daily

c on ta c t w iththepu bli c a nd areun iqu e ly

su ite d to theta sk of inf ormin g c iti zen s a

bo ut e lim inatin g mos qu ito ha bit a ts a ro un d th e ir residenc es. 

### 4. 11 REFERENCES AND GENER AL READ ING Br uder, K .W. 1980. The establishment of unified Ope n Marsh Water Manag ement standards in Ne w J erse y . Procee dings New JerseyMosquito Control Association 67: 72- 76. Carlson, D.B . 1987. Salt marsh impoundment manag ement along Florida ' s I ndian River L ag oon: historical perspe ctives and c urre nt implementation trends. In : Whi tman, W.R. and W.H. Mere dith (Eds.). Procee dings of a Symposium on W aterfowl and W

etlands Managem ent in the Coastal Z one of the Atlantic Flyway
. Carlson, D.B . and J.D. Carroll, J r. 1985. De veloping and implementing impoundment ma na g e me nt m e tho ds be ne fi tin g mos qu ito c on tr ol, fi sha ndwi ldl if e : a tw o y e ar p ro g re ss report about the Tec hnical Subcommittee on Mosquito I mpoundments. Journal of the Florida Anti-Mosquito Associati on 56: 24-32. Carlson, D.B . and P.D. O' Bry an. 1988. Mosquito production in a rotationally manag ed impoundment compare d to other mana g ement tec hniques. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 4: 146-151. Carlson, D.B . and J.R . Rey (Eds.). 1989. Workshop on salt marsh mana g ement and rese arc h. Journal of the Florida Anti-Mosquito Association , Bulletin #1. Carl so n, D. B ., J.R. Re y

a ndJ.D. Carr oll (E ds .) . 1 99 2. 2 wo rk sh op on sa lt m ars h nd manag ement and r esea

rch. Journal of the Florida Mosquito Cont rol Association , Bulletin #2. Carl so n, D. B ., J.R. Re y

a ndJ.D. Carr oll (E ds .) . 1 99 7. 3 wo rk sh op on sa lt m ars h rd manag ement and r esea

rch. Journal of the Florida Mosquito Cont rol Association , Bulletin #3. Cle me nts , B .W. a ndA. J. Rog e rs . 1 96 4. Stu die s o f i mpo un din g fo r the c on tr ol o f s a ltmarsh mosquitoes in Florida, 1958- 1963. Mo sq uito Ne ws 24: 265-276. Gi lmo re , R. G. , D .W. Coo ke a ndC.J. D on oh oe . 1 98 2. A c omp ari so n o f t he fi sh populations and habitat in open and closed salt-ma rsh impoundments in east-ce ntral Florida
. Northeast Gulf Science 5: 25-37.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 63

Har ring ton, R.W ., J r. and E.S. Ha rring ton. 1961. Food sele ction among fishes invading a hig h s ub -t

ro pic a l sa lt m ars h: f

ro m on se t of

fl oo din g thr ou g h th e pr og re ss o f a mos qu ito brood. Ecology 42: 646-666. Ha rr i n gt o n , R
. W
. , J r. an dE
. S
. Ha rr i n gt o n . 1 9 8 2
. E ff ec t s o n fi s h es an dt h ei r f

o ra ge or g a nis ms o f i mpo un din g a F lorida sa lt m ars h to pr e ve nt b re e din g by sa ltm ars h mosquitoes. Bulletin of Marine Scienc e 32: 523-531. L e s s e r , F
. a n dJ
. K
. S h i s l e r . 1 9 7 9
. H i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n to f O M W M i n N e w J e r s e y: equipment and tec hnique. Procee dings of the Utah Mosquito Abatement Association 25: 40-44. Mere dith, W . J ., D.E. Saveikis and C.J. S tache cki. 1983. Studies on the environmental eff ects of " Open Ma

rsh Water Mana g ement" , a salt-mar sh mosquito control technique. Es tua rie s 6: 270. Me re dith, W.J., D .E . Sa ve iki s a ndC.J. St a c he c ki. 19 85 . G uid e lin e s f or " Op e n M ars h Water Mana g ement" in Delawa re' s salt marshes - obje ctives, sy stem desig ns, and installation procedur es. W e tla nd s 5: 119-133. O' Bry an, P.D., D.B . Carlson and R.G. Gilmore. 1990. Salt marsh mitig ation: an example of the proc ess of ba lancing mosquito control, natural re source and deve lopment interests. Fl or ida Sc ie nti st 53: 189-203. Provost, M.W . 1959. Impounding sa lt marshes for mosquito control...and its effe cts on bird life. Fl or ida Nat ur

ali st 32: 163-170. Provost, M.W . 1967. Manag ing impounded sa lt marsh for mosquito control and estuarine resour ce c onservation. Marsh and Estuary Manag ement Sy mposium. Ramey , V. Aquatic Plant I dentification Deck. Unive rsity of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es. Gainesville, Florida. Re sh , V .H . andS.S. B a lli ng . 1 98 3. Ti da l c ir c ulatio n a lte ratio n f or sa lt m ars h mo sq uit o control. Environmental Manage ment 7: 79-84. Rey , J .R. and T. Kain. 1989. A g uide to the salt marsh impoundments of F lorida. U n i v e r s i t y

o f F l o r i d a - IF A S , F l o r i d a

M e d i c a l E n t o m o l o g y

Lab o r a t o ry , V e r o B e a c h , F L. Rutledge , C.R. (Ed.). 2004. Florida Mosquito C ontrol Handbook 3 Edition. Fort rd My ers, F L : Florida Mosquito Control Association. Subcommitt ee on Manag ed Mar shes. 1996. Information for permit applicants entering the impoundment manag ement plan submittal proce ss. Report to the Florida Coordinating Counc il on Mosquit o Control.C hapt er 4: Sou rc e R ed uc t i on Page 64

Subcommitt ee on Manag ed Mar shes. 1996. Guidelines for salt marsh ditching ma na g e me nt p la n e va luatio n. Re po rt to the F lorida

Coo rd inatin g Cou nc il o n M os qu ito Control.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 65 

## Ch ap ter 5 LARV ICI DES A ND LA RVI CID ING

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : D o u g W a ssm er a nd C a n d a c e R o y a ls 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : D o u g W a ssm er
Summ ary This chapter focuses on the various agents used to c ontrol juv e nil e mo sq uitoe s wh ile in l ife sta ge s – lar v ae an d p up ae – wh ic h o c c ur on ly in water. The old days of smothering eve rything with one pesticide such as waste oil are gone, and mosquito control is rapi dly approaching an age of pre sc rip tio n a

pp lic ati on s wh e re a c om

pe te nt o pe ra tor will ap plyon e or

a combination of larvicides in an environme ntally friendly manner ap prop ria te to a giv e n s e t of c on dit ion s. To s afe ly alte r o ur aq ua tic environme nts, eve n temporarily, for the purpose of controlling mosquitoes requires a good working knowledge of both the target spec ies and lar v ic ide s. Pr

od uc ts a nd

te c hn iqu e s c ur re ntl

y us e d in Fl or ida are discussed. Com me rc ial

pe sti c ide se c tio ns su mm ar ize da ta f ou nd in m an ufa c ture rs’ current product literature and labels. Two of many additionalsources of information on mosquit o larvicides are:

• U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency htt p://ww w.e

pa .g ov /pe sti c ide s/h e alt

h/m os qu ito e s/l ar

v ic ide s4 mo sq uitoe s. htm

• Alameda County, California Mosquit o Control http://ww w.mosquitoes.org/BIORAT.html The Un iv e rsi ty of F

lor ida pu bli sh e d a ha nd

bo ok ( De an an d Ne sh e im 1998) on correc t pesticide applications which cove rs in depth many topics presented he re. 

### 5 . 1 I NTR ODU CTI ON L arv ic idi ng is a

g e ne ral te rm

fo r kill ing imm a tur e mos qu ito e s b y app lying a g e nts , collectively

called la rvicides, to contr ol mosquit o larva e and/or pupae. L arva l Source Manag ement (L SM) involves both the modification of wate r habitats, ofte n ref err ed to as Source Reduc tion (see Chapte r 4), and the direc t application of larvicides to control mosquito production. Most m osquito species spend much of their life c y cle in the larvalC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 66

stag e whe n they

arehighly

susceptible to both predation (see Chapte r 7) and control e ff orts. Th e y

of te n a rec on c e ntr a te d w ith in d e fi ne d w a te r b ou nd ari e s, imm ob ile wi th littl e ability

to disperse, a nd acc essible. Adult mosquitoes, in contrast, fly in searc h of mates, blood meals, or w ater source s for e g g laying and areoften inac cessible, not conce ntrated, and widely

distributed. There fore , eff ective la rviciding can r educethe number of a dult mosqui toes available to disperse, pote ntially sprea d disease, c reate a nuisance , and lay

eg g s which lea ds to more mosquitoes. Th e e ff e c tiv e c on tr ol o f l arv a e a nd /or pu pa e is a

ba sic princ ipl e of

I nte g rate d Pe st Ma na g e me nt ( I PM) . E ff

ec t i v e IPM i n v o l v es u n d er s t an d i n g t h e l o ca l m o s q u i t o ec o l o gy a ndpatte rn s o f a

rb ov irus tr a ns mis sio n andthe n s e le c tin g theapp ro priate mos qu ito c on tr ol t oo ls. Th e mos t c omm on me tho ds of I PM in c lud e En vir on me ntal Mana g e me nt, or Source Reduction (Chapter 4), L arvic iding, and Adulticiding ( Chapter 6) . Other mosquito control principles include B iocontrol (Chapter 7), as we ll as additional methods no t di sc us se d h e resu c h a s h e rb ic idi ng a ndhandre mov a l of a qu a tic plants . T he se methods may

be used to c ontrol immature mosquitoes indirectly , usually when ther e is an obligatory

association betwe en the larvae/pupa e and spe cific host plants. In Florida , Mansonia and Coquellitt idia mos qu ito e s a rea sso c iate d w itha qu a tic plants
. Common ex amples of hig hly conce ntrated br oods include immature Aede s tae nio rh y nc hu s and Ae. sollicitans in saltmarsh pools, Psorophora columbiae in flooded pastures, and specie s such as Cul ex nig rip alp us in w a ste wate r t re a tme nt s ite s. I n th e se situations, mos t Florida mosquito control prog rams larvicide as a manag ement pra ctice beca use it both mini miz es the a rea in which control proc edure s must be applied and reduc es the ne ed for

adult control. At these times, larviciding ha s a hig h impact on local population numbers with minimal application efforts. At other times, larviciding may be le ss r e wa rd ing be c aus e sma ll n umb e rs of larv a e a ndpu pa e arewi de ly a ndun e ve nly distributed. Ex amples include Cul ise ta m e lan ur a in b a y tr e e sw a mps , Mansonia specie s and Cq. perturbans in larg e fr eshwater mar shes with patchy host plant distribut ion, and Anopheles quadrimac ulatus in l arg e , o ve rg ro wng ra ssy re te nti on po nd s. Planning a

L SM strateg y

is crucia l to a highly

eff ective c ontrol prog ram. The first step beg ins with adult and larval surve illance. Onc e surve y s have be en conduc ted, it is then important to map out and prioritize potential larval habitats. Tr eatment thre sholds, often based on the number of la rvaeencounte red at a site, should be established to justify larviciding , and ac tion plans appropriate for the sites should be develope d. It is im portant to selec t the appropriate contr ol ag ent and f ormulation based on p er fo rm an ce an do t h erfa ct o rs . Iti s cr i t i ca l t o h av e at h o ro u gh k n o wl ed ge o f t h e b i o l o gy of the tar g eted spe cies in orde r to determine the appr opriate la rvicide, the timing of the application, and the amount of produc t to be applied. F or example, Ae. taeniorhync hus tend to “ball up” w hen fe eding as 3 instars (Nay ar 1985)
. rd Th e larv a e areun e ve nly dis tribu te d andthede ns ity wh e rethe y

do oc c ur is muc h h ig he r than at othe r time s in the ir de ve lop me nt w he n th e y

te ndto b e mor e e ve nly

dis pe rs e d insa lt m ars h p oo ls. Th is situation may

call for an application rate hig her w hat is normally used, but neve r e xce e din g thema ximum

a llo we d o n th e la

be l. L arv ic ide s may

be c ho se n w hic h e xhibi t aC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 67

selec tive mode of a ction and havea minimal residual ac tivityor which a re not sele ctive and exhibit l ong -term c ontrol. Many larvicide s can beapplied fr om either the g round by truc k, bo a t, andhandhe ld d e vic e s o r b y a ir wi th f ixedwi ng a ndro tary

wi ng a ir c ra ft , howeve r, some produc ts are not suitable f or ae rial application. Follow-up ef fica cy c he c ks areimp orta nt t o e ns ur e a su c c e ssf ul l arv ic idi ng pr og ram, andro tatio n o f p ro du c ts should be incorpor ated into any I PM progr am. Thereis no perfe ct larvic ide for e very situation, and eac h larvicide has its streng ths and wea knesses. L arvic ides may

be g rouped into two broa d cate g ories: biorational pe sti c ide s a ndc on ve nti on a l, b ro a d- sp e c trum p e sti c ide s. Th e latte r w ill be dis c us se d in sections 5.2.3 thru 5.2.4.2. The term “biorational” g ained popularity in the climate of e nvironmental aw are ness and public conce rn (Williamson 1999). It refe rs to pesticides of natural orig in that have limit ed or no a dverse eff

ects on the e nvironment or bene ficial org anisms. I n order for a synth e tic a lly

pr od uc e d p e sti c ideto b e c la ssi fi e d a s a bio ratio na l, i t mu st b e str uc tur a lly identical to a naturally

occur ring compound. B iorational pesticides a re c omprised of two ma jor c a te g orie s: 1 ) M ic ro bial a g e nts ( e.g. , bacte ria) http:// www.pe sticidebook.com/pdfs/cha pter24_pa g es293-295.pdf and 2) B iochemica l a g e nts ( e.g ., pheromone s, hormones, g rowth re g ulators, and e nzy mes). Schuster and Stansly

(2006) morerec ently

define d a biorational pesticide as any type of insecticide a ctive ag ainst pest populations but relatively innocuous to non-targ et org anisms, and, there fore , non-disruptive to biologic al control. An insec ticide can be "innoc uous" by

having low or no direc t tox icity on non-targ et org anisms or by having short field re sidual, thereby minimi zing exposure of natural ene mies to the insecticide. B y thi s d e fi nition , a ll l arv ic ide s r e g ist e re d f or us e in F lorida , w he n a

pp lie d a c c or din g to label instructions, might be considere d biorational. Ther e is ac tually no leg ally

clea r, absolute def

inition of a biorational pesticide ( Wil liamson 1999). Th e U. S. Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (EPA) c onsiders biorational pe sticides to have differ ent modes of a ction than traditional pesticides ( htt p:/ /ip mw orld. umn .e du/c ha

pte rs /w are .h tm ), wi th g re a te r s e le c tiv ity a ndc on sid e ra

bly lower risks to humans, wildl ife, and the environme nt. The EPA lists several larva l c on tr ol a g e nts a s “ bio pe sti c ide s” ( htt p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /op pb pp d1 /bi op e sti c ide s/i ng re die nts /in de x.htm ). Th e te rm s “biorational” and “ biopesticide” ove rlap but ar e not identical.
5.1.1 History Stories of prodig ious numbers of mosquitoes occupy a spec ial place in Florida’ s history (P a tte rs on 20 04 ) b e g inn ing wi th 1 6 c e ntu ry e xplor e rs . A n 1 88 8 y e llo w f e ve r e pid e mic th in J acksonville set in motion the formation of the Florida State Boa

rd of He alth (F SBH) in 1 88 9. Th e F lorida

An ti- Mo sq uit o A sso c iatio n w a s f ou nd e d in19 22 . T he fi rs t mosquito control legislation wa s passed, and the Indian River Mosquito Control Dist rict was e stablished in 1925 (Anonymous 1948, Patterson 2004).C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 68

L arvic iding be came prominent when implemente d as an a rea -wide ma laria c ontrol proce dure in the e arly

1900s, but by

then it had bee n used as a control tec hnique for ove r a ce ntury in Florida ( Floore2006). From the ea rliest day s, two types of larval control wer e employ ed: L arvic iding a s a tempora ry control method and ditching as a pe rmane nt control method (se e Chapter 4 on Source Reduc tion). L arvic iding using waste oil or diesel oil products wa s implemented to control mosquitoes in the early 1800s (Howa

rd 1910). Paris g ree n dust, an arse nical insec ticide, was de veloped a s a larvic ide in 1865 and, along with undiluted diesel oil, was used throug h the 1960s (Anonymous 1970). In 1958, theF SB H d e ve lop e d it s o wnPari s- g re e n g ranu lar f ormul a tio n a s a

g e ne ral pu rp os e larv ic ide(M ulr e nn a n 1 95 8) . T he F SB H w e nt o n to de ve lop its ow n “ F lorida Mo sq uit o L arvic ide” in the 1960s whic h contained 99% mineral oil (unpublished 24-C labe l 1967). After 1945, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroe thane ( DDT), a chlorinate d hy droca

rbon compound, was use d as both an a dulticide and a la rvicide in F lorida (Anonymous 1970, Patterson 2004). Mo sq uit oe s b e c a me re sis ta nt t o D DT , andits us e wa s d isc on tin ue d in thelate 19 50 s. As re sis ta nc e to D DT inc re a se d, malathi on , an o rg a no ph os ph a te (O P) compound, was use d incre asing ly to control both larval and adult mosquitoes. Soon, re sis ta nc e to m a lathi on wa s o bs e rv e d insa ltm ars h mosquitoes (Rathburn and B oike 1967). The F SBH then implemente d a policy limit ing the use of malathion to adulticiding in are as whe re O P larvicides we re not used. Re sistance (see Chapter 10) has bee n a conce rn of F lorida mosquito control ag encie s (B oike and Rathburn 1968) for many y ear s . Rog e rs a ndRa thb urn ( 19 64 ) s umm ari zede arl y a g e nc y a tti tud e s to wa

rdlarv ic idi ng : “Althoug h larviciding alone is not reg arde d as a pr actical proce dure f or mosquito control in Florida ... the g reat value of la rvicides is fully

appre ciated.” Attitudes have c hang ed, and by 2006 most mosqui to control ag encie s in Florida ha d incorporated larvic iding a s on e of the ir mos qu ito ma na g e me nt p ra c tic e s. During the ten y ear s that have e lapsed since the first edition of this document, a numbe r of larvic iding f

ormulations are no longe r re g istered and likely will never a g ain be a vaila blea s to ols fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc ie s. Th e se pr od uc ts i nc lud e py re thr um, diflubenzuron, Bonide Mosquito L arvic ide (oil), and B VA Chry salin (oil). L ag inex AS (a c tiv e ing re die nt Lagenidium giganteum ) h a s n ot b e e n e nth us ia sti c a lly a c c e pte d in Florida or elsew herein the United States. Some ag encie s may list predatory

minnows wh ic h th e y

pu rc ha se fo r l arv a l c on tr ol a s li ne ite ms i n th e ir larv ic idebu dg e ts, bu t th e se fish areconsidere d biocontrol ag ents. Bioc ontrol is discussed in Chapter 7. Industry consolidation has place d the stewa rdship of the re maining la rvicides into the hands of few er manufac turers. Mosquito control prof essionals must be diligent with applications and g uard a g ainst the loss of the re maining c ontrol ag ents.
5.1.2 Regulation Th e re g ulatio n o f l arv ic ide s a ndlarv ic idi ng is p ro vid e d f or by a se t of fe de ral a ndstate acts, statutes, a nd rules. Ove rsig ht includes both reg ulation of the pesticides the mselves and re g ulation of pesticide a pplications. The princ ipal controlling law is the F eder al I ns e c tic ide , Fun g ic ide , andRod e nti c ideAc t ( F IF RA ). Cha pte r 4 87 F lorida

Statut e sC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 69

(F .S. ), kn ow n a s “ Th e F lorida Pe sti c ideL a w” , Ch apte r 3 88 F .S. kn ow n a s “ Th e Mo sq uit o Control Act” and a ssociated Rules outlined in Chapters 5E- 2 and 5E-13 of the Florida Administrative Code c o n s t i t u t e t h e S t a t e ’ s au t h o r i t y ( http:// www.f laes.org/aese nt/ind e x. htm l ). The F lorida De partment of A g riculture and Consumer Service s (F DACS), Bur eau of

Entomology

and Pest Control, is tasked with ensuring compliance and re g ulates and lice nses the pest c ontrol industry and mosquito control prog rams. I n acc ordanc e with FI

FRA and the Florida Pesticide L aw, F DACS has established a Pesticide Review Council (PRC ) to advise “ the Commiss ioner of A g riculture reg arding the sale, use and re g istration of pesticides and advises g overnme nt ag encie s, including the State University Sy stem, reg arding their re sponsibili ties pe rt a ini ng to p e sti c ide s” ( htt p:/ /w ww .f la e s. or g /pe sti c ide/pe sti c ide re vie wc ou nc il. htm l ). The Counc il serves a s a state wi de fo ru m f

or thec oo rd inatio n o f p e sti c idere late d a c tiv iti e s to eliminate duplication of e ffort and maxim ize protection of human he alth and the environment. The PRC consists of eleve n scientific membe rs and ope rate s under the authority

of Chapter

487 F.S. The F DACS Division of Agricultural Environmenta l Services ( AES) administers various state and f

eder al re g ulatory

prog rams conc erning environmenta l and consumer protec tion issues. These r esponsibiliti es include state mosquito control prog ram c oordination, ag ricultural pe sticide reg istration, testing, and reg ulation, pest control re g ulation, and fee d, seed, and fertiliz er pr oduction inspection and testing . The AES, B ureau of Pesticides, Pesticide Reg istration Section “re g isters fede rally acc epted ( FIFRA) pesticides” ( htt

p:/ /w ww .f la e s. or g /pe sti c ide/pe sti c ide re g ist ratio n. htm l ) that ar e distributed, sold, or offe red for sa le in Florida . Pesticides not requiring fede ral a pproval must be reg istered in F lorida to assure adher encewith State law. Emerg ency exemptions from fede ral re g istration also arerevie wed and proce ssed by the Pesticide Reg istration Section and submitted to the EPA for ac tion. Special reg istration actions for ne w ac tive ingr edients, spec ial local nee ds, signific ant new use s, and experimental use pe rmits are proce ssed throug h the Section. To ac complish their mission, m ember s of the Section c on su lt w ithsp e c ia lis ts w ith in F DA CS a ndoth e r s tate a ndfe de ral a g e nc ie s, c omm iss ion s, a ndc ou nc ils
. Th e Sc ie nti fi c Ev a luatio n Se c tio n ( SES) of theF DA CS, A ES, B ur e au o f P e sti c ide s, includes scientists with expertise in ge ology , soil science, hy drolog y , mammalian and ecolog ical toxi colog y , chemistry , and che mical fate modeling ( htt p:/ /w ww .f la e s. or g /pe sti c ide/sc ie nti fi c e va luatio n. htm l ). The SES provides tec hnical su pp ort a ndha s f

ivec or e fu nc tio ns /pr og rams: 1. Pesticide Reg istration Evaluation Commit tee Revie ws 2. Endang ere d Species Protec tion Program 3. Ground Water Prote ction Prog ram 4. Surfac e Water Protec tion Program 5. Pesticide Usag e Information ReportingC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 70

Th e SES f

un c tio ns a ndint e ra c ts w ithoth e r s take ho lde rs to e ns ur e thesa fe ty of theState of F lorida. Many

new mosquito control insecticide formulations areevaluated by the F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity , Joh n A . M ulr e nn a n, Sr . Pu bli c He a lth Entomology

Resear ch and E ducation Center (PHEREC) in Panama City
. Cha pte r 3 88 F .S. pr ov ide s th e auth ority fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol a c tiv iti e s. Th e statut e includes a pr ovision that publi c lands may be desig nated a s environmentally sensitive and biolog ically

highly productive, the reby

requiring specia l arthropod c ontrol plans for mosquito control activities on those “desig nated” lands. Many state and f

eder al land ma na g e me nt a

uth oriti e s [ e.g. , Florida

Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection (FD EP), Florida Division of Fore stry

(F DOF ), F lorida F ish and Wil dlife Conservation Commi ssion (FFWC C), U.S. Fish and Wildli fe Service ( USFWS)] and re g ional water manag ement districts desig nate their conservation lands similarly and have corr esponding control plans in place
. The c ontrol plans areinitiallyproposed by the mosquito control ag ency for individual parc els and ne g otiated with the public land mana g er until mutually ag ree d upon. Either pa rty may pr op os e fu rthe r ame nd me nts . T he reis n o o ve ra rc hin g a g re e me nt that c e rt a in control che micals areapprove d for a ll such public lands. For example, in 1987, the Florida Park Serviceand various mosquit o control ag encie s adopted c ontrol plans for many state par ks (per sonal communication, Dana C. Bry an, Environmenta l Poli cy Coordinator, Off

ice of the Dire ctor, F lorida Park Service, De cembe r 2006). At that time, p ro d u ct s co n t ai n i n g Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is ( Bt i ) andme tho pr e ne we rewi de ly approve d for use
. Bacillus sphaericus ( Bs ) had not y et bee n develope d commerc ially and hencewas not included in a rthropod contr ol plans. Many subsequent plans include Bs in addition to Bt i and methopre ne. See Cha pters 9 and 13 f

or additional discussions of mos qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc y

int e ra c tio ns wi th o the r g ov e rn me nt e nti tie s. 

### 5.2 La rvi ci des A vail ab l e Mosquito larvicides re g istered f or use in F lorida ar e discussed be low within the fo llo wi ng c la ssi fi c a tio n s y ste m: • ins e c t g ro wth r e g ulator s ( I GR s)
• microbial larvic ides
• or g a no ph os ph a te s ( OPs )
• su rf a c e oil s andfi lms I nsecticide labels usually

bear a pre cautionary

signa l word. The ne cessity for a signa l wo rdon la

be ls ( htt p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /op pf

e a d1 /la be lin g /lrm/c ha

p- 07 .h tm ) and w hich word is assigne d is depende nt upon the results of six separ ate a cute toxicitystudies which ar e perf ormed with ea ch produc t formulation. Therearea variety

of produc ts and formulations within eac h larvicide classification. Specific f ormulations are differ ent from manuf actur er to manuf

actur er. A pplication rate s a ndsu g g e ste d tr e a tme nt s ite s may dif fe r a s w e ll. I ndividual product labe ls and materia l sa fe ty data sh e e ts ( MSD S) , u su a lly

do wn loa da

blefr om m a nu fa c tur e rs ’ w e b s ite s, sh ou ldC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 71

be consulted f

or spec ific information, habitat depende nt application rates, and re stric tio ns , if

a ny . F DA CS sh ou ld b e c on su lte d to e ns ur e that a sp e c if ic pr od uc t is labeled f or use in F lorida.
5.2.1 Insect G rowth Regulators (IG Rs) The initial identification of a natura l juvenile hormone (JH I ) in insects occ urre d in 1967 a ndwa s f oll ow e d r apid ly

by thedis c ov e ry

of JH I I a ndJH I I I

(H e nric k 2 00 7) . JH i s involved in the reg ulation of phy siologica l proce sses in insects including mating and metamorphosis. Resea

rch w as initiated in 1968 to determine if insec t pests could be se le c tiv e ly

c on tr oll e d –

wi tho ut e nv ir on me ntal c on c e rn s – by de ve lop ing synth e tic mimics of the natura l J H. Since JH does not occur in ve rtebrates, it was expected that selec tive insecticides c ould be deve loped. Sache r (1971) reported on a g roup of chemicals that mim ic juvenile hormone activity . These c hemicals a ppear ed to block natura lly occur ring ecdy sone fr om initi ating molting proc esses and inducing m et am o rp h o s i s i n m o s q u i t o l ar v ae . S t aa l (1 9 7 5 ) d i s cu s s ed s ev er al m et h o p re n e a n al o gs that in te rf e rewi th n orma l in se c t g ro wth andmatur a tio n. Ab no rm a l la rv a l g ro wth patte rn s p lus ma lf

orme d o r s ma lle r than n orma l f orms w e reob se rv e d. Th e fi rs t I GR , which contained seve ral methopre ne isomers, wa s reg istered in 1975 (H enric k 2007). Methopreneproducts cur rently arethe only

I GRs reg istered f

or use in F lorida.
5.2.1.1 Methoprene Methoprene(I sopropy l (2E, 4E, 7S)-11-me thox y -3,7,11 -trimethyl-2,4-dodec adienoate) is a terpe noid compound. Tec hnical methopre ne is an amber or pale y ellow liquid with a faint fr uity odor ( htt p:/ /e xtoxne t.o rs t.e du/pi ps /me tho pr e .h tm ), wh ic h is sli g htl y so lub le in water and is miscible in org anic solvents. Methopre ne is a synthetic mimic and a true a na log of natur a lly oc c ur ri ng JH f ou ndin m os qu ito e s a ndin o the r i ns e c ts. J H is found throug hout the larva l stag es of a mosquito, butit is m ost prevale nt during the e arl y ins tars . A s mo sq uit o la

rv a e matur e , th e le ve l of

natur a lly oc c ur ri ng JH ste a dil y de c lin e s u nti l ju st p ri or

to the 4 ins tar m olt , w he n la rv a e de ve lop int o p up a e . T his tim e th is a sensitive period whe n all the phy sical fe ature s of the adult beg in to form. Methopreneis absorbed throug h the insect’s oute r " skin" or c uticle and may be inc ide ntally

ing e ste d o r e nte r the bo dy thr ou g h o the r r ou te s. The leve l of applied methoprene(parts per billion) in the larvae ’s wate r environme nt must be highe r than the level of juve nile hormone c irculating in the larva e’s body in order f or the disruption of e nd oc ri ne pr oc e sse s to oc c ur . T he re fo re , th e app lic a tio n o f m e tho pr e ne larv ic ide s is most effica cious during late 4 instar. Tre ated larvae r eac h the pupal stag e and the n th cannot e merg e to bec ome adults. Since pupaedo not eat, they eventua lly

deplete body stores of e ssential nutrients and starveto death. Incomplete a dult emerg enceis an i n d i c a t o r o f m e t h o p r e n e e f

f i c a c y. Methopreneis list ed ( htt

p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /op pb pp d1 /bi op e sti c ide s/i ng re die nts /in de x.htm by the EPA as a biope sticide. Methopre ne base d larvicide s are Gene ral Use Pesticides (G UPs ). Me tho pr e ne -b a se d la rv ic ide s h a ve un de rg on e e xten siv e stu die s b othprior toC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 72

and af ter re g istration to determine risk to humans and non- targ et org anisms. When used acc ording to label direc tions, methoprene is consider ed extraordinarily safe for humans a n da l m o s ta l l n o n - t ar g e to r g a n i s m s . M e t h o p r e n e d o e s n o tp r o d u c e n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o ry, rapid toxi c ef

fec ts often associated with centr al nervous sy stem tox icants. The le thal eff ects of me thoprene arebased on thedisruption of the insect’s e ndocrine sy stem mediated de velopmental proc esses, such a s metamorphosis and embry og enesis. Consequently , control of mosquito larvaeis relatively slow. Me tho pr e ne is e ff

e c tiv e in a

wi de va ri e ty of bo th f re sha ndsa ltw a te r h abit a ts. It is relatively selec tive for tar g et spec ies, and ling ering mosquito pupae serveas a f ood for fi sha ndoth e r p re dator s. Th e I GRis p artic ula rl y e ff e c tiv e a g a ins t Aede s larva e. Methoprenedoes not bioacc umulate; it deg rade s into sim pler c ompounds. Si nce ultraviolet light de activate s methoprene , many formulations incorpor ate a ctivated char coal or

other da rk inert substanc es to prolong product life. E arly methoprene manufa cturing products included two mirr or-imag e molecule s called r - and s- isomers. The ra cemic isomer

(r- methoprene ) is not active on mosquitoes. Improved manufa cturing techniques a llow curre nt formulations to contain only active s- methoprene isomers. Methopre ne labe ls bear the “CAUTI ON” sig nal word.
5. 2. 2 M ic r obi al L ar vic ide s Microbial larvicides ar e formulated to deliver a natura l tox in to the intended targ et org anisms. Ba cteria ar e sing le-c elled par asitic or sapr ophytic microorg anisms that e xhibi t bo th p la nt anda nim a l pr op e rtie s a ndrang e fr om h arm le ss andbe ne fi c ia l to intensely virulent and letha l. Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is ( Bt ), is the most widely used ag ricultural micr obial pesticide in the world, and the majority of microbial pe sticides reg istered with the EPA a re ba sed on Bt . The Bt

serova r kurstaki ( Bt

k) i s th e mos t c omm on ly

re g ist e re d mi c ro bial pe sti c ide , andthi s v ari e ty ha s a c tiv ity

a g a ins t L epidoptera

(butterf lies and moths) larva e. It was orig inally isolated from natural L epidopteran die-off

s in Germany

and Japan. Bt

products havebeen available sincethe 19 50 s. I n the 1960s and 1970s, the World Hea lth Org anization (WHO) encour ag ed and su bs idi zedsc ie nti fi c dis c ov e ry a nduti lizatio n o f n a tur a lly oc c ur ri ng mic ro be s. As a re su lt o f tho se e arl y

stu die s a nda

wh olebo dy

of su bs e qu e nt w or

k, tw o li ne s o f m os qu ito c on tr ol p ro du c ts h a ve be e n d e ve lop e d: c ry sta lli ne toxin s o f t wo c los e ly re late d g rampositive, aerobic bacte ria – Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is ( Bt i ) and Bs . M os qu ito control ag ents based on Bt arethe sec ond most widely reg istered g roup of micr obial pe sti c ide s. Hi g hly

su c c e ssf ul Bt i pr od uc ts h a ve e xpa nd e d th e ro le of mic ro bial a g e nts into the public health ar ena ( de B arja c 1990). Reviews of micr obial ag ents may be found in L ace y 1985, L ace y

2007, and Singe r 1985.
5.2.2.1 Bac ill

us th uringie nsis isr

ae le nsis Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is is a ba c te ri um w hic h o c c ur s n a tur a lly in s oil s a nda qu a tic environments g lobally . I n 1976, Goldberg and Mar g alit (1977) isolated Bt i fr om Culex pip ie ns c oll e c te d ina n I sr a e li rive rb e d. I n 1 97 7, de B arj a c de sig nate d th is Btstrain as H14, noting that it is tox ic to mosquito and black fly larva e. Ove r the last thre e dec ades, aC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 73

number of othe r strains havebeen inve stigated, some with desire d larvicida l effe cts. Two strains, SA3A and FM65-52, ar e cur rently utiliz ed for

commerc ial products. The a ctive ing redie nts in Bt i fo rmulatio ns arede lta -e nd oto xin ( d- e nd oto xin) c ry sta ls se pa rate d f ro m ba c te ri a

ne ar the e ndof

ma nu fa c turing pr oc e sse s. Th e se toxic c ry sta ls areincorporated into various produc ts which allow their r elea se into water so that they may be ing ested by

mosquito l arva e. The d-endotoxin cry stals are activate d by the alkaline e nvironment and e nzy mes of the mosquito midgut. The alkaline g ut environment a llows hy droly sis of the cry stal’s protein coating and the re lease of protox ins. Gut enzy mes then ac tivate the pro- tox ins and fac ilitate their binding to the g ut e pithe liu m of

themos qu ito larv a . Ce lls ru ptu rea ndarede str oy e d at th e bin din g sit e s, le a din g to a

los s o f b od y

fl uid s w hic h r e su lts in d e a th. Th is r apida c tio n ty pic a lly controls larva e in 4-24 hours. Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is is list ed by the EPA as a biope sticide ( htt p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /op pb pp d1 /bi op e sti c ide s/i ng re die nts /in de x.htm ). Bt i based larvicide s have unde rg one extensive risk studies both prior to and af ter re g istration. Bt i products ar e GUPs and a

re sa fe f or non-tar g et org anisms in the environment. The cry stalline d-endotoxins arenot activated in the a cidic g uts of humans or other animals or in the alkaline g uts of animals which do not contain the enzy mes nec essary for a ctivation and binding of re lease d pro-toxins . This specificity acc ounts for the hig hly

selec tive nature of Bt i larvicide s which is limit ed to Dipterans, notably mosquitoes, black flies, and some midge s. Bt i controls all larva l instars provided they arestill fee ding. It is effe ctive on mos t mo sq uit o s pe c ie s ina ve ry wi de va ri e ty of ha bit a ts; Bt i formulations arethus ide a lly su ite d f or I PM. Bt i pr od uc t la

be ls s ho w the po te nc y

of thepr od uc t a s th e nu mbe r o f Inte rn a tio na l T oxic Units (I TU) a vailable. This value is more meaning ful than the we ight pe rce nt of the a c tiv e ing re die nts , a s it

c ha ra c te ri zes thefo rmulatio n’ s e ff e c tiv e ne ss. I TU value s are determined by

a standa rdized laboratory

bioassay which uses 4 instar

th Culex quinquefasciatus . Prepar ed volumes of toxins areapplied to living mosquito larvaeand the re sulting mortality

data pr ovide a numerical mea sure of activity
. Bt i labels bea

r the “CAUTI ON” sig nal word.
5.2.2.2 Bac ill

us s pha e ric us Bacillus sphaericus is a natura lly occur ring spore- forming bacte rium found throug hout the world in soil and aquatic environments. Ke llen and My ers ( 1964) isolated Bs from Culiseta incidens larva e in California. Ea rly studies wereconducte d on Bs strains isolated by

the Pasteur Institut e, while the c ommercia l products discussed be low are ba se d o n s tr a in 2 36 2 is olate d inNi g e ri a . L a c e y (2 00 7) re po rt e d th a t se ro va ri e tie s w ith the most pronounced la

rvicidal a ctivity

are1593 and 2362. Some strains produc e a pr ote in d -e nd oto xin at th e tim e of sp or ulatio n w hic h is toxic to m a ny sp e c ie s o f m os qu ito larva e upon ing estion.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 74

Ba c ill us sp ha e ric us acts in a manner similar to Bt i , e xce pt i t ha s b e e n s ho wnto r e c y c le in int a c t Culex

cadavers, thus maintaining some residua l activity (B ecke r et al . 1995). Onc e larva e ing est these Bs d- e nd oto xins, the y arepa rtia lly dig e ste d ( the ir

pr ote in e nv e lop e is dissolved) in the alkaline g ut, enabling the re lease of pro- tox ins. These pro- tox ins in turn areactivate d by

enzy mes and attach to the g ut wall wher e they beg in to disrupt, paraly ze, and rupturethe g ut. The a ctivity

of Bs d-endotoxins di ffe rs from that of Bt i in several important way s. Bs tox ins are attached to a

living bac terial sporewhile the Bt i tox ins are not. Thetox ins of Bs and Bt i bind to chemically differ ent re ceptor

cell sites. They

arenot relate d immunologically

and ar e thoug ht to have complete ly differ ent molecular

modes of action. Ope rationally , the most important differe nces be tween the tox ins are spe ed of action and pe rsistence in the larva l habitat. Bs tox ins are muc h slower a cting than Bt i tox ins and can be more persistent. Bs has a slowe r settling r ate, and the spores c an invade the body

cavity of the larvae w herethey

have the capa

bilityto ge rminate, g row, and produc e toxi ns. This process is known a s rec y cling
. Bs is list ed ( htt

p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /op pb pp d1 /bi op e sti c ide s/i ng re die nts /in de x.htm ) by the EPA as a biopesticide
. Bs based la rvicides a re G UPs, which have underg one extensive risk studies both prior to and af ter re g istration. The cry stalline d-endotoxins arenot a c tiv a te d inthea c idi c g uts of hu ma ns or

oth e r anim a ls o r i n th e a lkalin e g uts of a nim a ls wh ic h d o n ot c on ta in the e nzyme s n e c e ssa ry to a c tiv a te thepr o- toxin s. Th is s pe c if ic ity acc ounts for the hig hly

selec tive nature of Bs larvicide s; they do not targ et as wide a rang e of mosquito specie s as do Bt i p ro d u ct s . Fo rm u l at i o n s co n t ai n i n g Bs. aremos t a c tiv e a g a ins t Culex and Anopheline larva e and le ss active a g ainst some Aede s larva e. Formulation effe ctiveness de pends on the mosquito species and environmenta l conditions i n c l u d i n g w a t e r

q u a l i t y. I n g ener al, the best immediate r esults with Bs areobtained whe n applications ar e made to larvaein the 1 to 3 instars. L arva l mortalitymay be observed st rd a s s o o n a s a

f e w h o u r s a f

t e r i n g e s t i o n , b u tt yp i c a l l y i tt ak e s a s l o n g a s t w o t o t h r e e d a ys depending upon dosag e and ambient temperature. Ade quate r ecy cling of Bs for sustained control is depende nt on the prese nce of dead mosquito larva e. Bs I nternational Tox ic Units (B s I TU) va lues aredetermined by a standa rdized laboratory bioassay simil ar to that de veloped f or Bt i H-14. The bioassay uses 3 and 4 instar Cx.

rd th quinquefasciatus . The sig nal word “ CAUTI ON” a ppear s on Bs product labe ls.
5. 2. 3 Or ga nopho spha te s The term org anophosphate (OP) re fer s to all pesticides containing phosphorus. OPs were dis c ov e re d inGe rm a ny

du ri ng a se arc h f or a su bs titutefo r n ic oti ne , w hic h w a s h e a vil y us e d a s a n in se c tic idebu t w a s insh ort su pp ly . T he ins e c tic idal qu a lit ie s w e refi rs t o b s e r v e dt h e r e d u r i n g W o r l dW ar II ( htt p:/ /ip mw orld. umn .e du/c ha

pte rs /w are .h tm ). OPs have be en used f

or mosquito control since the e arly 1950s. OPs work afte r entry into and distribution t hroug h the body of a ta rg et org anism by

modify ing the normal func tions of some nervecells by

inhibiti ng the ac tivityof cholinester ase e nzy mes at the neuromuscula

r junction. This action re sults in t he ac cumulation of ac ety lcholine, there byC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 75

interfe ring with neuromuscular transmission. I n insects, OPs produce a loss of coordination leading to para ly sis and ultimately death. 5.2.3.1 Tem ephos Temephos ( O,O’- (thiodi-4, 1-phenylene) O,O,O’ ,O’-te tramethyl phosphorothiolate) is an OP compound. During the 1960s, temephos wa s studied ext ensively as a r eplac ement for thepe rs ist e nt o rg a no c hlo ri ne DD T i n malari a c on tr ol p ro g rams. It w a s r e g ist e re d a s a mosquito l arvic ide in 1965. A re view of F lorida pesticide userec ords indicates that temephos has be en utiliz ed in the state since1969. Temephos is cur

rently the only OP reg istered f

or use a s a larvic ide in Florida
. It is labeled f or use in many

habitats including tidal marshes, woodland pools, pollut ed water, tires, and a s a pre -hatc h treatment. Temephos is often r ecommende d as a r otation larvicide wher e it is used in place of the microbial or I GR larvicide in an I PM progr am. Temephos is a G UP with a low tox icity when use d acc ording to the label with little or no de trime ntal e ff

e c ts o n n on -t arg e t or g a nis ms. Te me ph os is o ne of thele a st t oxic OPs to ma mma ls ( htt

p:/ /e xtoxne t.o rs t.e du/pi ps /te me ph os .h tm ). Product labe ls bear e ither the signa l word “WARNING” or the sig nal word “ CAUTI ON.”
5 . 2 . 4 S u rf

a ce O i l s a n d Fi l ms Surfa c e oil s a ndfi lms us e d a s la rv ic ide s in c lud e oil s a nde tho xy late d is os te aryl a lc oh ols
. As pr e vio us ly

no te d, su rf

a c e oil s, su c h a s w a stemot or oil a nddie se l, w e rethefi rs t larvicide s used for mosquito control in Florida. Howa rd (1931) considere d low g rade kerose ne or f

uel oil more satisfac tory

than other la

rvicide me thods. The State of F lorida develope d its own “Florida Mosquito L arvic ide” oil, also ca lled the “F lorida F ormula”, in the 19 60 s, bu t by

the19 80 s, c ru de fo rmulatio ns su c h a s th e se we relos ing status in F lorida . Stud ie s h a d b e g un on po te nti a l r e pla c e me nt p ro du c ts s uc h a s A ro su rf , a thi n lay e r alc oh ol- ba se d s ur fa c e fi lm ( Mu lr e nn a n 1 98 2) , andhig hly re fi ne d p e tr ole um o ils (M ulr e nn a n 1 98 3) . N e w o il f ormul a tio ns re pla c e d th e “ F lorida F ormul a ” by

themid 1980s (Mulrennan 1986). The ne w thin lay er surfac e films and hig hly ref ined oils are virtually colorless and odorless (F loore e t al
. 1998), and the y exhibi t the same larval and pupal control prope rties as the w aste oils they repla ced.
5. 2. 4. 1 Lar vic idingOil s Th e larv ic idi ng oil s a

repr ob ably

thele a st s tud ie d o f the mos qu ito larv ic ide s, de sp ite the ir lon g pe ri odof

us e fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol. Spe c if ic c on tr ol m e c hanis ms a

redif fi c ult to pinpoint but l ikely

include poisoning of the larvae ( pers. c omm., E. J . Be idler, Indian River MCD). Oils also can suffoc ate – but only at the very

highe st dosag e rates. I nert ing re die nts inc lud e e mul sif ie rs wh ic h h e lp the m sp re a d o ve r the wate r’ s su rf a c e a ndkil l larv a e a ndpu pa e wh e n in ha le d in to the tr a c he a e a lon g wi th air . With lo w d os a g e s ( e.g ., 1 g allon per a cre ), oils can wor k very slowly , taking four to seve n day s to provide control. Hig her dosa g e rates (3-5 g allons per a cre ) ar e usually used to dec rea se the control time. Surfac e oils also areconsidere d one of the most effe ctive tools for pupa lC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 76

control and c an contr ol newly emer g ed adults that ar e re sting on the w ater surfa ce w hen drying the ir wing s. L arvic iding oils areGUPs that are non-selec tive, and mosquito control eff icac y is lim ited to tho se sp e c ie s w hic h b re a thea ir a t th e wate r s ur fa c e . T he y ha ve a low toxic ity when used ac cording to the label with minimal detrimental eff ects on non-ta

rg et org anisms. An " oil sli ck" can beviewed on the water surfa ce. B oth their odor and a ppear ancemay be objec tionable, pre cluding widespre ad use in some a rea s. L arvic iding oil labels be ar the “CAUTI ON” sig nal word.
5 . 2 . 4 . 2 Mo n o mol ec u l a r S u rf a ce Fi l ms Monomolecular f

ilms (MMFs) ar e biodeg rada ble, ethoxy lated alc ohol surfac tants, made fr om r e ne wa

bleplant o ils
. MMF s a

relig hte r than w a te r anddo no t mi x partic ula rl y we ll with it. As their name implies, MMFs produc e an e x tremely thin film on t he water’s su rf a c e . T he y

we reorig inally

de ve lop e d b y

theU. S. N a vy

du ri ng Wor ld Wa

r II to h e lp remove oil sli cks. MMFs ha ve bee n widely used in the cosmetics industry for ove r 30 y ear s as a c omponent of skin car e produc ts. Monomolecular films wer e investig ated a s mosquito l arvic ides and pupicide s beg inning in the e arly 1980s. Nay ar and Ali (2003) ha ve re vie we d M MF s a ndthe ir mos qu ito c on tr ol u se s. Monomolecular surfac e films do not kill bytox ic ac tion but ex ert a phy sico-che mical impact on mosquito populations (pers. comm., Richard L evy 2007). When applied, they sp on ta ne ou sly

a ndra pid ly sp re a d o ve r the su rf

a c e of thewate r t o f

orm a n u ltr a -thinfi lm that is about one molecule in thickness. They act by signific antly

reduc ing the surfa ce te ns ionof thewate r andwe tti ng mos qu ito str uc tur e s, wh ic h le a ds to dro wn ing . M os qu ito adults, eg g s, larvae , and pupaeutiliz e the surf acetension of wate r in various a spects of their life c y cle. With the surfac e tension re duction, mosquito l arva e, pupae , and e me rg ing a du lts c a nn ot p ro pe rl y orie nt at th e a ir -w a te r i nte rf a c e a ndwi ll e ve ntu a lly dr ow n. Ad ult s o f b othse xes that utili ze the wate r s ur fa c e fo r n orma l r e sti ng , anda du lt fema les who use the surfac e for ovipositi on also may

drown. Eg g s and eg g raf ts of certain specie s may

not float normally

or may sink and bec ome unviable. Monomolecular surfac e films can a ffe ct spec ies that depe nd on the air- water interfa ce. Th e y may be us e d s a fe ly

in p ota blewate rs , w a te rs be ari ng fi sha ndoth e r a qu a tic or g a nis ms, a ndin r

un of f w a te rs that e nte r f

ish -b e ari ng wate rs . Mo no mol e c ula r f ilm labels bea r the “ CAUTI ON” sig nal word.
5.2.5 On-site F orm ulation s and Com bin ing L arvicides Mixin g mate ri a ls “ on -s ite ” to f ormul a te pr od uc ts h a s h ist oric a lly be e n p op ula

r w ith mosquito control operations in Florida . Apply ing liquid larvic ides to g ranula r ca rrier s has bee n the most widely used ty pe of home -made formulation. One e arly product i n v o l v e dap p l y i n g P ar i s - g r e e n l i q u i dt o l i g h t
- w e i g h ts i l i c a p art i c l e s ( p e r s . c o m m . , E
. J. Be idler 1996). Anothe r notable pr acticeinvolves combining two mosquito larvicide s into a single -end pr oduct in order to take advantag e of the properties of ea ch compone ntC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 77

ingr edient. The most widely used of theseon-site formulations and la rvicide combinations are discussed below. M e th opr e ne Sand G r anul e s areon-site g ranula r formulations that are pr oduced by combining liquid methopre ne with washe d sand. Thirty y ear s ag o, this process wa s develope d at the Indian River Mosquito Control Dist rict in Ver o Be ach, and the formulation was named “Altosand” beca use Altosid L iquid L arvic ide was use d as the a c tiv e mate ri a l ( pe rs . c omm ., E. J. B e idl e r 1 99 6) . A lto sa ndwa s d e ve lop e d p ri mari ly to control mosquitoes in densely canopie d mang rove swamps and coa stal salt marshes wh e reit i s o ft e n n e c e ssa

ry to p e ne tr a te de ns e c a no pie s. Me tho pr e ne sa ndg ranu le s, prepa red on- site, are used in Florida
. Bti Sand G r anul e s wer e not available as c ommercia l formulations until t he latter part of 19 96 . H ow e ve r, te c hn ic a l Bt i po wd e r andla be lin g ha s b e e n a vaila

blesin c e themid 1980s to allow end-use rs to make their own " on-site” Bt i sand g ranule s. Sand formulations requir e coating the pa rticles with oil (GB -1111 or B VA 2) and then ap p l yi n g d ry Bt i powder

which will stick to the oil. Although Bt i te c hn ic a l po wd e r i s curr ently produce d by

both Be cker

Microbials and V alent B ioscience s, it is not commonly

used in on-site formulations in Florida. Bt i sand g ranule s are no longe r produce d commerc ially ; they are , howeve r, still produced “ on-site” by mosquito control op e ratio ns in w e ste rnstate s. Duplex is the name that ha s been attached to the e nd-user formulation which is made by co mb i n i n g Bt i liq uida ndliq uidme tho pr e ne . T his mixtu rewa s d e ve lop e d p ri nc ipally to c on tr ol l arv a e su c h a s Culex spp . wher e many

differ ent instars may

be pre sent. The ratio na le fo r this mixtu reis that le thal Bt i do se s a reso me wh a t pr op ortio na l to a mos qu ito larv a ' s b od y

size a ndthe re fo rele ss Bt i is require d for c ontrol of ea rly instars. The opposite is true for me thoprene which is most effe ctive af ter 4 instars have stopped th ea t i n g an dt h e a m o u n to f m et h o p re n e r eq u i re dfo r c o n tro l i s t h e l ea s t
. C o mb i n i n g Bt i with methoprene theore tically allows operations to use less of eac h product than if using on ly on e pr od uc t. T he Pa sc o Co un ty Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol D ist

ri c t ( PCMC D) oc c a sio na lly duplexes both products at max imum dosage s for c ontrol at sites with a larg e synchronous brood of both 3 and 4 instars. I n a variation on this process, PCMC D also has rd th combined liquid methoprene with Bt i g r a n u le s to p r o d u c e a n o n s it e “ G r a n u la r D u p le x" fo rm u l at i o n . A p ro d u ctco mb i n i n g Bt i and Bs is commercia lly available
. Monom olecular F ilm s used w ith other larvicides h a v e b e e n i n v e s t i g a t e d
. L e v y et al
. (1982, 1984) r eporte d signific antly improved ef

fica cy of seve ral larvicides whe n formulated w ith ethox y lated alc ohol surfac tants. The author s indicated that “ the use of mix tures of A g nique MMF or Ag niq ue MMF

mos qu ito larv ic ide s a ndpu pa c ide s w ith other mosquito biolarvicides, I GRs, and/or ce ntral nervous sy stem inhibit ors has be en shown to enhanc e the translocation of the bioac tive ag ents over the surfa ce of the wate r and provide improved joint-action mosquito-controlling eff icac y .” The dual-a ction larvicide formulations also ar e expected to be a g ood tool for use in re sistance manag ement prog rams. The use of a varie ty of ethoxy lated alc ohol surfac tants that are approve d by

the EPA for use as inert mate rials in pesticide formulations is beingC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 78

e va luate d o n an o pe ratio na l ba sis a s a dju vants fo r a va ri e ty of c on ve nti on a l mo sq uit o larvicide s. L ee County

Mosquito C ontrol District (L CMCD) has bee n using a mix ture of a MMF and temephos for many y ear s as a joint-ac tion larvicide that ra pidly sprea ds over the wate r surfa ce ( pers. c omm., W . Gale and R. L evy 2006). PCMC D employ ed a MMF -temephos c ombination for seve ral y ear s with low doses of the monomolecular

film used as a spr eade r and te mephos as the intende d active ingr edient. Howe ver, a

laboratory

study with this m ix introduced into long g utters populated with live larva e showe d that temephos by itself sprea d nearly

as we ll as when mix ed with a MMFand that ther e wa s a slight tende ncy for r educe d mortality

when the two wer e combined ( Wassmer, unpublished data) . Consequently , the mix ture wa s abandone d in favor of

a temephos and water

only mix . The re sults sugg est a ne ed for further study
. 

### 5 . 3 REP ORT I NG ORG ANI Z ATI ONS AND RE CEN T LARV ICI DE USE Pesticide usag e re ports (in PDF format) dating back to F Y 97-98 a re a vailable f

or do wn loa din g a t htt

p:/ /w ww .f la e s. or g /a e s- e nt/mos qu ito /r e po rt s. htm l . A number of specia l taxi ng districts, municipaliti es, deve lopments, golf c ourses, and individuals throughout F lorida a lso c on du c t mo sq uit o c on tr ol o pe ratio ns bu t do no t r e po rt a c tiv iti e s to F DA CS. Dur in g the f

is cal y ear b eginn in g Octo ber 1 , 2 00 4 an d en di ng S ept emb er 30 , 2 00 5 (FY 04 -0 5) , 5 8 mo sq uit o c on tr ol a g e nc ie s inF lorida re po rt e d mo nth ly

pe sti c ideus a g e to FDA CS. For FY04-05, the 58 a g encie s reported larvic ide applications on 385,900 acre s. Cor re sp on din g F Y 9 4- 95 tot a ls r e po rt e d b y 50 a g e nc ie s inthefi rs t printing of thi s document showe d that 458,937 acr es we re tre ated with larvicide. Many of additional ag encie s reporting f

or F Y 04-05 we re started in response to the Florida WNV outbreak wh ic h b e g a n in20 02 . T he y didno t have thetim e or

thebu dg e ts t o f

ull y de ve lop I PM prog rams, and a dulticiding wa s the predominant c ontrol method employ ed. Gr ound larviciding was re ported by 49 of 58 ag encie s (85%), and 18 of them also re ported a eria l larviciding . I n contra st, only80% (40 of 50) of r eporting ag encie s for F Y 94-95 made larvicide applications. The a bsolute number of a g encie s that larvicide ( 49 versus 40) incre ased by

23%, and the number that larvicide ae rially (18 ver sus 15) incre ased by 20%. Ground la

rviciding totaled 172, 816 ac res ( aver ag e 3,527 ac res) , while ae rial larviciding totaled 213,024 ac res ( aver ag e 11,835 ac res)
. 

### 5. 4 EQUIP MENT AV AILABLE F lorida mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns e mpl oy a va ri e ty of larv ic idi ng e qu ipm e nt f

or bo th a e ri a l a ndg ro un d a

pp lic a tio ns , a s n e c e ssi tate d b y thewi de rang e of

larv a l mo sq uit o ha bit a ts, targ e t sp e c ie s, a ndbu dg e tary c on str a int s. Ea c h o pe ratio n ty pic a lly wi ll u se mor e than o ne ty

pe of app lic a tio n e qu ipm e nt. Th e rearea dv a nta g e s a nddis a dv a nta g e s to eac h application sy stem used and to the a eria l and g round treatments themselves.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 79

5. 4. 1 G r ound A pplic ation Equipm e nt Almost all Florida mosquito control ag encie s use some ty pe of f our-whe el drive equipment as a

primary larvicide vehicle. In most cases an open-be d pickup is equipped with a che mical-c ontainer tank, a hig h-pre ssure, low-volume e lectric or g as pump, and a spray nozz le. A switch a nd an extension hose allow the drive r to operate the equipment and apply the larvic ide from inside the truc k' s cab. Some a g encie s have the spray er mounted on the front bumper of the truc k and install a mec hanica l control that allows the driver to dire ct the spray

while re maining in the c ab. Roadside ditche s, swales, re tention ponds, treatment ponds, a nd other similar bodies of w ater can betreated with this setup. I ncre asing ly , mosquito control ag encie s are moving towa rds the use of

all-terr ainvehicles ( ATVs), w hich allow oper ators to re ach la rval ha bitats that are ina cce ssible by truck. The se units can c arry a re asonable pay load allowing operators to treat a number of remote sites c onsecutively without having to r eturn to re plenish pesticides. As with a truc k, a c he mic a l c on ta ine r i s mo un te d o n th e AT V, a 12 -v olt e le c tric pu mp s up pli e s a high- pressurelow-volume flow, and a hose and spray tip allow for manua l application by an unac companied ope rator w hile steering the ATV w ith the other hand. A TVs ar e idea l for tre ating are as such a s ag ricultural f ields, pastures, sa lt marsh are as, and othe r off -roa d sites. Training in ATV saf ety and handling should be provided to employ ees ope rating the se ma c hin e s. Ultra L ow Volume (U LV) mac hines also can be mounted in the bed of the truck or

on the back of an ATV to apply

larvicide s. These se tups require the installation of a g as eng ine and compr essor plus a mete ring sy stem to acc urate ly control output (see Chapter 6 f or a detailed de scription of ULV sy stems). ULV applications of liquid l arvic ides from the g round we re introduc ed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Current applications are limit ed primarily

to the use of hand-held ULV machine s. ULV larvic iding a llows the product to drift into inacc essible ar eas. Amore c ommon use of ULV equipment involves diverting air fr om the compre ssor to propel g ranule s and briquets into the targ et habitat via spec ial g ranule nozz les or pneumatic g uns. Additional equipment used in g round applications includes dippers, horn see ders, handheld spray ers, and backpa ck blower s and spray ers. Dippe rs and horn-see ders may be used to broadc ast small amounts of g ranula r or pe lletiz ed larvicides in spots that require min ima l tr e a tme nt. Hand -h e ld s pr a y e rs arestand ardon e - o r t wo -g a llo n g ard e n s ty le pump-up spray ers use d to treat small isolated ar eas w ith liqui d larvicide formulations. Ba ckpac k spray ers usua lly have a g as-powe red blowe r with a c hemical tank and c a lib rate d p ro po rtion ing slo t. G e ne rally , p e lle t or sma ll g ranu lar m a te ri a l is app lie d w ith a g as-powe red ba ckpac k spray er. The y areextremely

useful for

treating tire piles. Pump- up ba c kp a c k s pr a y e rs areso me tim e s u se d f or dis pe ns ing liq uidlarv ic ide s.
5.4.1.1 Advantages of Ground Ap plication Therearesever al advantag es to using g round application equipment when on foot or from vehic les. Ground larviciding allows more ac curate pesticide a pplications to the intended tre atment ar ea and conseque ntly to only those micro-ha

bitats where larva e ar eC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 80

actua lly prese nt. Ground larvic iding a pplications are less aff

ecte d by weather c onditions than ar e ae rial applications and are less susceptible to drift and pr oduct deposition outside the intended tre atment ar ea. T his featur e re duces the likelihood of unnece ssary pesticide load on the envir onment and the f inancial c ost of wasted pe sticide. Also, initial and maintenanc e costs of g round equipment a re g ener ally

less than those for

aerial equipment.
5.4.1.2 Disadvan tages of Gr ound Appli cation Wit h g round application, there is g reater risk of c hemical e x posure to applicators than aerial larviciding . Ground a pplications rely

on human estimates of both the size of treatment are as and of

equipment output during pesticide a pplications. Calibration of the ap p l i c a t o r s t o t h e e q u i p m e n tc a n b e d i f f i c u l ts i n c e a n ap p l i c a t o r ’ s p a c e c a n v ary, e sp e c ia lly in a re a s w ithun e ve n te rr a in. It is dif fi c ult to p ro vid e e ve n c ov e ra g e wi th manually -oper ated g round equipment, and the possibilit y of under -applying or

overapplying a

larvicide is problematic. Gr ound larviciding is impractical f or larg e, inacc essible, or de nsely

wooded a

rea s.
5. 4. 2 Ae r ial App lic ation Equipm e nt Many of F lorida’s org anized mosquito control operations have adopted a eria l larviciding as a c ontrol strateg y

on otherwise la

rg e, unmana g eable larva l mosquit o habitats. Ag encie s may

not actually

own the ae rial equipment, a s ag ricultural f ly ing se rvice s can be contr acte d to apply

larvicide s as nee ded. Outsourc ing the usually seasona l activity

of aerial larviciding eliminates the nee d for and expense of an aircra ft purcha se, airc raf t maintenanc e costs, and the expenses associate d with having a pilot and per haps an airc raf t mechanic on staff. Aerial larviciding is acc omplished via fix ed wing or rotary airc raf t. Both ty pes of aircra ft can a pply both solid and liqui d larvicide formulations. A variety of hopper s, nozz les, and metering sy stems can be adapte d to the airc raf t, depending upon the desire d equipment config uration and its size. The dec ision on whether to use liquid or g ranula r applications depends on the targ et habitat and pr evailing meteorolog ical conditions. Granular formulations provided by manufa cture rs incorpor ate a paper product, sand, g elatinous materia l, or cornc ob particle s as the ca rrier for the a ctive ing redie nt. Granule s a lso may be prill e d ( pe lle tize d) andc on ta in l itt le if a ny c arrie r. On e prill ing pr oc e ss i s sim ila r t o th a t of

makin g larg e sn ow ba lls , w he rethea c tiv e ing re die nts arec on tin uo us ly packe d onto a small seede d coreas the ba ll of material is slowly rolled in a rotating tray . The tilt of the tray

and the r otational speed he lp determine the resulting product size, as larg e r b a lls of

mate ri a l r oll of

f the e dg e . In s omeins ta nc e s, a g e nc ie s c a n f ormul a te the ir ow n g ranu lar m a te ri a ls ( e.g ., sand mix es). Most g ranula r formulations are a

pplied at rate s rang ing f

rom 6 to 20 pounds of product pe r ac re.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 81

5. 4. 2. 1 Se le c ti ng La r vic ide F or m ula ti ons forAe r ial App lic ation s Dec iding whic h larvicide formulation to apply is critical for

succe ssful control ef

forts. Thereis considera

ble debate about which f

ormulations are best for e ach mosquito control prog ram. De bates ofte n focus on ha bitat differ ence s and which pr oduct type (liquid or g ranule ) will best rea ch the tar g et habitat or c ombination of habitats to be treated. The relative eff

icac y of pesticide ty

pes, their initial cost, the costs of any mix ing, and the costs of loading and fe rrying the pesticides to the application sit es also nee ds to be considere d. Wit h liquid applications, there is debate over the ideal dr oplet siz e and c arrier. Wind, temperature, e vaporation, and droplet movement ha ve major impac ts on the succe ss or failu reof ULV a pp lic atio ns . U sin g larg e dr op le ts e lim inate s so me of thedrif t pr ob le ms of ULV. L ow volume or ULV applications of undiluted liqui d products (no w ater added) ma ximize a c re a g e pe r l oa d, the re by re du c ing ov e rall c os ts. Di luting liq uidpr od uc ts incre ases the c osts of loading and fe rrying and g reatly reduc es the pay load. Howe ver, dil uti on may

a llo w the app lic a tio n o f m or e dr op le ts w ith in an a pp lic a tio n s ite , w hic h in so me c ir c ums ta nc e s may

le a d to a be tte r p re se ntatio n o f the toxic a nt t o th e mos qu ito larva e and thus be tter control. Liquid larvicides can deposit and stick on foliag e, re ducing the amount available for larva l control. Using small droplets or ULV may reduc e the loss due to canopy impaction, but the amount of material actua lly rea ching the targ et under these c onditions is not well documented. Some org anizations attempt to m inimiz e losses by using “raindrop” nozzl es which pr oduce e x tremely larg e drople ts. These lar g e drople ts are tho ug ht t o “ pu nc h” the ir

way thr ou g h th e c a no py , b ut this c on c e pt n e e ds e va luatio n; this ty pe of app lic a tio n may

re nd e r o ve rall e ff

ic a c y un a c c e pta

blefo r s ometarg e t are a s w ith specific canopy

types and de nsity . Despite these shortcoming s, ease of produc t handling a ndre lativ e ly

low e r p ro du c t c os ts c omb ineto m ake liq uidlarv ic idi ng a via ble operational option. Dry pe sti c ide s f

ormul a tio ns su c h a s p ow de rs uti lize bu lky a nd /or he a vy c arrie rs to preve nt them from drifting away from tar g et application sit es. Ne w formulations such a s prilled g ranule s may

eliminate some of the w eig ht and bulk, but they are e sse nti a lly un kn ow n to F lorida

mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns . G ranu lar p ro du c ts, in c on tr a st t o li qu id formulations, usually

have le ss drift and ar e less apt to stick to foliag e, allowing so me wh a t be tte r p e ne tr a tio n. Gr a nu lars areno t a s e a sy to h a nd le a s th e ir

liq uid counter parts bec ause of

their bulk ( e.g ., c ornc ob fo rmulatio ns ) o r the ir we ig ht ( e.g. , sand formulations). Initial costs (espec ially the costs of pre mix ed formulations) tend to be highe r than the initial costs of close ly related liquid formulations. Aircra ft load we ight restric tions li mit the amount of g ranule s per load and thus the number of a cre s that may be tr e a te d a s c omp are d to dil ute d li qu id f ormul a tio ns . In a dd iti on , p ilo ts andthe ir mechanics areextremely

cautious about a

pply ing f ormulations containing sand or other ha rdc arrie rs wi th tur

bin e drive n air c ra ft
. Ov e r the pa st d e c a de sin c e thefi rs t printing of thi s d oc ume nt, theF lorida Mo sq uit o Control Association (FMCA) ha s held annua l aerial application wor kshops, called theC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 82

Aerial Short Courses, at L CMCD in Ft. My ers, F lorida. The c ourses ha ve included expert prese ntations on relevant pesticide application topics, field demonstrations, and actua l on-site application re sear ch. In addition, during the period of 2001 throug h 2004, extensive aeria l field trials wer e conduc ted in Pasco County , Florida , to evaluate canopy penetr ation for ty

pical over -stories and to de termine the pote ntial for improved pe ne tr a tio n a s a

fu nc tio n o f b othe mitte d li qu id dro ple t si ze andc ornc ob g ranu le size in six common habitats. Pasco County is located on the w est coa st of Florida and contains southern coa stal veg etative c ommuniti es dominated by mang roves and northern c oastal veg etative c ommuniti es dominated by rushes. F ield trials (Mickle 2002b, 2004, 2005) and knowledg e g ained at the aerial short course s (Mickle 2002a ) ar e discussed be low and in the next s ection, 5.4.2.2 Mea suring and Perf ecting the Application of A eria l L arvic ides. They

may be downloade d from the PCMCD website at htt p:/ /w ww .p a sc omo sq uit o. or g /ol ds ite/Re se arc h_ De ve lop me nt. htm or obtained by contac ting the D istrict office
. Results of the studies shown in Fig ure 5- 1 indicate a signific ant diffe renc e betwe en what i s ap p l i ed an dwh atre ac h es t h e t ar gets u rf ac e f o r a l l fo rm u l at i o n s t es t ed
. Al t h o u gh Va le nt B ios c ie nc e s p ro du c ts w e reus e d inthestu dy , th e re su lts sh ou ld a pp ly to all Bt i brands. F or Bt i liquid (Vectoba c 12AS, Tekna r HP-D) applications, pene tration ana ly ses re ve a le d r e lativ e ly

low de po sit s u nd e r all c a no py ty pe s. I n a dd iti on , d if

fi c ulty in re mov ing drie d d e po sit s f ro m dr op le t sampl e rs su g g e ste d th a t f oli a g e de po sit s w ou ld mos t li ke ly

no t bewa sh e d o ff

by su bs e qu e nt r a inf

a ll e ve nts
.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 83

Pe ne tr a tio n w a s h ig he st thr ou g h th e sa ltw ort ( Batis mariti ma ) s ite andthebla c k n e e dle rush ( Juncus rome rianus ) s ite (w hic h n orma lly do e s n ot p ro du c e mos qu ito e s) , y e t on ly 35% and 45% , respe ctively , of the liquid mix rea ched the g round, re g ardle ss of droplet s i z e. Ato t h ert es ts i t es , re s u l t s we re ev en l es s i m p re s s i v e. Ap p l i ca t i o n o v er1 0 -i n ch h i gh kn otg ra ss (Di sti c hil is s

pic ata ) re sulted in over 97% of the 80 micron drops and all of the 300 micron drops de positing on the ve g etation. Gene rally , spray s above the taller 10 foot -30 foot canopies of B razilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), black mang rove ( Av ic e nn ia germinans ), a ndc abb a g e pa lm ( Sabal pa lm e tto ) with live oak, ( Querc us virginiana ), long leaf

pine ( Pi nu s p alu str is ), and r ed maple ( Ace r rubrum ) r e su lte d inle ss than 30% of Bt i liq uidmix pe ne tr a tin g to the g ro un d. Sma lle r dro ple ts t e nd e d to pe ne tr a te c a no pie s sl ig htl y be tte r than la

rg e r dro ple ts. Th e se re su lts areg e ne rally in ag ree ment with a study

(Pierce et al
. 1 9 8 9 ) b y M o t e M ar i n e L ab o r a t o ry i n L e e C o u n t y, Florida , wher e only

about 20-70% of

a temephos- water

mix ture re ache d the g round whe n applied over

dense bla ck mang rove ha bitats at five g allons per a crewith raindrop nozz les. I n contra st to the liqui d applications, more than 50% of e ither size of the g ranule s penetr ated the c anopies at all sites. At the knotgr ass site, 10/14 g rit g ranule s perf ormed better than the larg er 5/8 g ranule s with 82% versus 50% pe netration. I n the black mang rove ha

bitat, 100% of both the 5/8 and the 10/14 g rit g ranule s penetrated the canopy to the substrate. B eca

use only 40% or less of

the liquid pesticide mix rea ched the F igure 5-1C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 84

g round, and morethan 50% of the Bt i g ranu le s r e a c he d th e g ro un d inthesa me ha bit a ts, the local mosquito control ag ency decide d to use 10/14 g rit g ranula r formulations wher ever it was prac tical for a eria l larval c ontrol. This practiceis an example of se le c tin g thebe st f

ormul a tio n th ro ug h a

ri g or ou s e xami natio n o f the pe rtine nt f a c tor s.
5. 4. 2. 2 M e as ur ing and P e r fec ti ng A e r ial Lar vic ide App lic ation s Whe n atte mpting to c on tr ol l arv a e a nd /or pu pa e of ma ny F lorida mos qu ito sp e c ie s, complete c overa g e of the larva l mosquit o habitat is critical. Missing just a tinyfra ction of the tar g et ar ea c an re sult in t he eme rg enceof hug e number s of biting a dults. A pilot must be completely

familiar with the a

pplication equipment and know w hat kind of swath width to apply

for e ach pr oduct under

differ ent environme ntal conditions. A pilot must know the mosquito-producing habitats and know w hen to apply “heavy ” in orde r fo r e no ug h p e sti c ideto r e a c h th e wate r’ s su rf a c e to e sta

bli shc on tr ol. Whil e ma ny pil ots claim that they

can f ly acc urate swaths base d on their skill alone, some ty pe of g uidance a ndof fs e t sy ste m is ne c e ssa

ry wh e n p e rf

ormin g a e ri a l la

rv ic idi ng ov e r l arg e are a s. Spray sy stem calibration is necessary to ensure that pesticides ar e being applied a c c or din g to l abe l r e qu ir e me nts . F or liq uidfo rmulatio ns , a

sp ray c a lib ratio n c on fi rm s that th e dr op le t si ze d ist

ri bu tio n is app ro priate . F or bo th l iqu id andg ranu lar l arv ic ide s, swath cha rac terizations and trial applications highlig ht the need f or modifications that sh ou ld p ro vid e thebe st c hanc e fo r u nif orm de po sit

a t la be le d r a te s. I n an e ff

ort to a ssi st in spray calibration efforts, two free companion softwa re pr og rams – Gr ainaly sis and Stainaly sis – have g ener ously been ma de available by

REMSpC Spray

Consulti ng at htt p:/ /w ww .r e msp c .c om/
. Gr ainalys is: REMSpC Gr anul ar De posit and Larval Mort ality Analysis Tool The Gr ainaly sis prog ram c an be use d to calculate the deposit cha rac teristics of g ranula

r swath-c hara cterization t rials from input data inc luding pr oduct weig ht, number of g ranule s, and mea sured larval mortality at ea ch sampler . Output, available in tabula r or g ra ph ic fo rm , is dis play e d r e lativ e to the a ir c ra ft fl ig ht l inea ndinc lud e s d e po sit (kilog rams per

hecta re or pounds per a cre ), cumulative de posit frac tion, number of g ranule s per unit ar ea ( square fee t or squaremeters) , number of g ranule s per g ram we ight of produc t, and mortality . Swath analy ses of de posit and g ranula r uniformity

also are available
. Stainal ysis: REMSpC Stain Analysis T ool The Stainaly sis prog ram c an be use d to analy ze drop cha rac teristics on Kromekote car ds th at h ave b een s cann ed u si ng anyfl atb ed s cann er (2 56 col or d ept h). BMP , GI F and TI FF file formats are supported. Notch f iltering allows for stain discrimination bycolor. Correc ting f

or spre ad fa ctor, an output file for e ach c ard inc ludes: spray documentation, digitization documentation, drop density , deposit volume (ounce s per a cre s or liters per he c tare ), vo lum e me dian d ia me te r, a ndthec on tribu tio n o f i nd ivi du a l dr op size s to volume fra ction, number fr action, and c umulative volume fra ction.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 85

At the J anuary

2002 FMCA Ae rial Short Course, ae rial swath c alibration and a pplication e ff ic ie nc y we rede mon str a te d ( Mic kle20 02 a ). A B e ll 4 7 So loy he lic op te r e qu ipp e d w ith an I solair g ranula

r spre ader was used to a

pply 10/14 grit corncob blanks at an ope rational application spee d of about 50 miles per hour and an altitude of 50 fe et. Analy sis of de po sit patte rn s r e ve a le d th a t a e ri a l app lic a tio ns we reso me wh a t si mil ar w he n f lying int o thewi nda ndwh e n f

lying wi th the wi nd . In b othof the se c a se s, the rewa s a

te nd e nc y to deposit more (a

bout twice as muc h) on the outer edg e of the swath and le ss under the flig ht line, with heaviest deposits on the left e dg e of the swath. The data showed that sprea der a djustments were ne eded to smooth out the distribution of gr anules a cross the swath. These obse rvations hig hlighted the importance of both ca librating equipment prior to an application and maintaining a constant spee d for whic h the application equipment was calibrated when a

pply ing pe sticide. The latter can befac ilitated using an onboard G lobal Pos iti on ing Sy ste ms ( GPS ) d e vic e c apa bleof me a su ri ng g ro un d s pe e d a s th e pe sti c ideis being applied. Th e se c on d p ha se of thede mon str a tio n r e ve a le d th a t are a s o f h ig h d e po sit para lleled the flig ht lines and that signif icant deposit variation occur red a long the flig ht path, i.e. , the contour lines did not alig n with, but crossed the f light lines. The author (Mickle 2002a ) conc luded that furthe r modification to the delivery sy stem could have pr ov ide d a

mor e un if

orm de po sit

a c ro ss the sw a th, wh ic h inturn s ho uldha ve re su lte d in le ss d e po sit

va ri abil ity . T he tria ls a lso po int e d o ut the de sir abil ity of a n o nb oa rdGPS g round-spe ed re adout, which would a llow the pilot to compensate for wind experience d du ri ng app lic a tio ns . Deposit varia

bilitycan beminimi zed only throug h rig orous ca libration prog rams and op timum f

lig ht- path p os iti on ing . U sin g fl a g g e rs is a simplea lte rn a tiv e to the us e of GPS g uidance if the influenc e of w ind has bee n considere d in advanc e. One or two flag g ers use a f lag or other sig naling device on eac h end of the treatment are a and pa ce of f a measure d distance f

or ea ch swath. The pilot is guided by the flag g ers, who the n paceoff thene xt sw a th, a ndso on . Wh ile no t pr a c tic a l f or a ll a re a s, wh e n u se d it

g re a tly incre ases the a ccur acy

of the tre atment cove rag e. Wit h today ’s elec tronic environme nt, a g round-to-air radio a lso may be employ ed whe re a fi e ld t e c hn ic ian o n th e g ro un d g uid e s th e pil ot b y po inting ou t land mark s th a t aree a sil y seen f rom the air. T his arrang ement wor ks espec ially

well at small sites and whe re the re is d e ns e c a no py

sin c e it i s o ft e n impr a c tic a l to fl a g the se are a s. An oth e r m e tho d is to sh ow thepil ot a

re c e nt a e ri a l ph oto of

thetarg e t si te du ri ng thepe ri odwh e n th e a ir c ra ft is being loaded and explain which spots are to be tre ated. In contra st, contour flying of larg e ar eas w hile applying pe sticides in multi ple swaths re quires spec ial GPS equipment beca use no one is ca

pable of rec alling all of the nec essary landmarks to maintain prope r l an e s p ac i n g. Wit h improved GPS equipment, new c omputer-g uidance prog rams for airc raf t are now a vaila ble . T he se ne w s y ste ms c a n a c c ur a te ly tr a c k th e mis sio n p arame te rs ( e.g ., treatment are a, coor dinates of tre atment ar ea, sw ath width, etc.) and provide the pilot with almost inst ant nec essary course corr ections. In addition to improving trea tmentC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 86

a c c ur a c y , th e se sy ste ms l og fl ig ht i nf ormatio n w hic h may

be do wn loa de d andus e d to pr od uc e a map o r a vis ua l di sp lay , p ro vid ing mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns wi th a c c ur a te rec ords of tre atments.
5. 4. 2. 3 Adv ant ag e s o f Ae r ial Lar vic ide App lic ation s The number

of prog rams utiliz ing a eria l larviciding has bee n incre asing in rec ent y ear s su g g e sti ng that th e rearea dv a nta g e s to larv ic idi ng by a ir . A e ri a l la

rv ic idi ng po se s a lower risk of chemical expos ure to a pplicators than g round larvic iding. Ae rial applications can be more economical for lar g e sites, espe cially when larvae a

re dis tribu te d th ro ug ho ut the are a . U til izin g a ir c ra ft is o ft e n th e on ly

way to t re a t r e mot e sites and those sites inacc essible by g round equipment. Calibration is si mplified by the fa c t th a t ta

rg e t are a s a

reof te n ma pp e d, a ndthelarv ic ideto b e app lie d is us ua lly measure d or we ighe d when loading
. 5. 4. 2. 4 Di sa dva nt ag e s o f Ae r ial Lar vic ide App lic ation s I f the c osts of the airc raf

t and airc raf

t maintenanceareincluded, it is ge nera lly more expensive to aeria lly

larvicide than to perf

orm g round applica

tions. To ensure a ccur acy in h itt ing thetarg e t, e ith e r a dd iti on a l la bo r f or fl a g g ing or

a n e xpe ns ivee le c tr on ic g uidance sy stem is needed. A s with all aeria l applications, treatment windows can be narr ow due to adve rse we ather conditions. Aerial a

pplications also requirespecia l licenses, staf

f training , and additional liability insurance
. 

### 5 . 5 CHO OS I NG WHE N T O L ARV I CI DE Hi sto ri c a lly , mo sq uit o c on tr ol a g e nc ie s h a ve a do pte d th e g e ne ral vi e w that la rv ic idi ng is ty pic a lly no t a s e ff e c tiv e or a s e c on omi c a l a s p e rm a ne nt s ou rc e re du c tio n b ut i s u su a lly more e ffe ctive than a dulticiding. Howe ver, this view wa s derived long ag o when wetlands we re not c onsidered to be as important as they aretoday . Many

of the compounds used we re diff ere nt as wer e costs in terms of mone y , manpower , and equipment. It was ea sy

to assume that it was " chea per in the long run" to move dirt and chang e the hy drolog y

of an a rea than to apply

pesticides. With federal, state, and loca l g overnme nt ag encie s strong ly advocating that we tlands not be draine d, the eng ineer s who ran c ontrol operations had only to decide if

it was " chea

per" to chemica lly

control larva e or a du lts , andlarv a l c on tr ol thr ou g h w a te r m a nip ulatio n w on ou t. The e nlightene d view of mode rn mosquito control profe ssionals includes a strong commitment to mi nimiz ing e nvironmental impacts. The y rec og nize that undist urbed wetlands should re main pristine and that any disturbance will have long -term e ffe cts on non-targ et spec ies of plants and animals. Source re duction in these ar eas should be avoided. Onedebate is over how to simultaneously manag e mosquitoes in wetlands and a t th e sa me tim e maximize thewe tland s’ va lueto e c os y ste ms. Ou r m od e rnapp ro a c h to mosquito control is reflec ted by the FMCA’ s commitment, along w ith the American Mosquito C ontrol Association (AMCA), a s a Partner in the EPA’s PesticideC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 87

Environmental Stewar dship Progr am (PESP) since the late 1990s ( http:// www.e pa.g ov/pesp/ ). Many mosquito control professionals oncebelieved that it was often illogic al to attempt larviciding . Howeve r, advances in a pplication technolog y , product formulations, and the ability to predict larval deve lopment have led to larviciding suc cess in ar eas c onsidered unmanag eable even te n y ear s ag o. Whil e larviciding is not alway s the pref err ed contr ol a lte rn a tiv e in all s itu a tio ns , it is a ke y c omp on e nt o f an e ff

e c tiv e I PM p ro g ram. T he reis no single answe r to mosquito control that can be applied to all circ umstances. A succ essful IPM progr am re lies on a variety of control methods and often on a combination of mana g ement tec hniques. As a pr actical matter, a dire ctor will view a n ag ency ’s entire are a of r esponsibilitybefor e making an informe d decision on whe ther or no t to e mpl oy

so ur c e re du c tio n te c hn iqu e s, larv ic ide s, or a du lti c ide s to c on tr ol m os qu ito populations. The direc tor must care fully weig h potential risks and bene fits associated wi th e a c h me tho d ina n in te g rate d p ro g ram a ndthe n u til ize theme tho d th a t is mos t appropriate.


### 5 . 6 MANAG I NG LAR V I CI DE RES I ST ANCE Selecting the prope r cla ss of larvicide and the f ormulation are both important in larval resistanc e mana g ement. See Cha pter 10 for

detailed e x planations of how pe sticide resistanc e occ urs and f

or re sistance mana g ement tec hniques. The F DACS, Bure au of E n t o m o l o g y a n dP e s tC o n tr o l d i s c o u r a g e s c o n tr o l a g e n c i e s f r o mu s i n g t h e s a m e ( o r

a n y) OP c omp ou ndto l arv ic idewh e n it or a no the r O P is u se d to a du lti c idebe c aus e thi s prac tice may

lead to re sistance. Re sis ta nc e a lso may

ari se by app lying su ble thal do sa g e s. Ma ny pe op le fe e l th a t th e EPA err ed whe n it beg an allowing the marke t (cost) to dictate what the low dosa g e would be, despite the re commendations on the produc t label. Insects with inhere nt toleranc es for wea kly applied pesticide s may

survive to produc e tolerant offspring . Soon, an entire population of tolerant mosquitoes may arise. B ey ond rec ommended use pe riods, slowrele ase f ormulations may

causeresistanc e if larvae a re e x posed to sublethal doses of the a c tiv e ing re die nts . A g e nc ie s th a t us e slo w- re le a se fo rmulatio ns sh ou ld b e a wa reof thi s possibili ty

and monitor treatment sites. Dame et al . (1998) r eporte d resistanc e to methopre ne in an island population of Ae. taeniorhynchus in Le e Cou nty a ft e r c on tr ol p ro ble ms w e reno te d inare a s tr e a te d w ith extended life (briquet) formulations. However , the issue appe are d to be local. The Florida Key s had bee n using me thoprene briquets since the early 1980s. Floore et al
. (2002) r eporte d no methopreneresistanc e in Florida Key s’ Ae. taeniorhync hus po pu latio ns a t si te s a lso c on tr oll e d w ithslo w- re le a se fo rmulatio ns wh e n c on tr ol l e ve ls wer e compa

red to those f

or a susc eptible colony

at PHEREC. The loss of any

mosquito l arvic ide bec ause of resistanc e would havea tre mendous imp a c t onF lorida

mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns . Pr op e r p ro du c t r otatio n – a lon g wi thC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 88

su sc e pti bil ity

mon ito ri ng – a

retheke y s to e ns uring that th e pe sti c ide s c ur re ntl y a vaila ble to mosquit o control prof

essionals remain effe ctive for continued use.


### 5. 7 UND ERSTAND ING L ARV ICI DE NON-TARGET E FF ECTS Currently used mosquito larvicides, whe n applied prope rly , areeff icac ious and environmenta lly

safe . Ty pically , there is less conce rn for the drift of mosquito larvicide s than f or thedrif t of a du lti c ide s, prima

ri ly du e to the dr op le t si ze. L arv ic ide s a rety pic a lly dis pe ns e d a e ri a lly

thr ou g h s pr a y

sy ste ms p ro du c ing larg e r dro ple ts ( 30 0 - 40 0 mi c ro ns ) for c anopy

penetr ation, while adulticides a re a pplied as smaller dr oplets (15 - 60 microns) for

spacespraying. Mosquito larvic ides usually areapplied dire ctly

into natural and artificial aquatic habitats as liquid or solid formulations, and ae rial drift is neg ligible. Drif t in to w a te r c a n r e su lt f

ro m ti da l f

lus hin g or rainw a te r r

un of f. Un de r the se conditions, dilut ion gr eatly reduc es post-application pesticide conc entration and conseque ntly

reduc es exposure to non-tar g et org anisms. It is possi ble to reduc e non-ta rg et exposure to larvicide s by using nove l application techniques and new pr oduct formulations. L arvic iding with mac hines that producefine a ir bo rn e pa rtic le s, su c h a s Bt i applied with rotary atomizers or turbines, spre ads the larvicide s so that the conce ntration of ac tive ingr edients at any one point is mini miz ed. I n a dd iti on , th e se te c hn iqu e s may ha ve thea dd e d b e ne fi t of a llo wi ng c on tr ol a g e nts to drift to inacc essible containe rs and r emote aquatic habitats. L arvic iding with fine pa rtic le s is no t w ide ly

pr a c tic e d inF lorida

or e lse wh e rein the U. S. T he L CMCD is curr ently developing slow-re lease technolog y for larvicides. Using differ ent g ranula r c arrie rs , th e se ne w f

ormul a tio ns pr ov idebe tte r c a no py pe ne tr a tio n andlarv a l c on tr ol, while re ducing the ac ute exposure rate for non- targ et org anisms. A v ari e ty of a qu a tic ha

bit a ts andc ommun iti e s, rang ing fr om s ma ll d ome sti c c on ta ine rs to larg er a g ricultural and marshland a rea s, are treated with larvicide s. Natura l fauna inh abiting the se sit e s may inc lud e a mph ibi a ns , f

ish , andinv e rt e br a te s, pa

rtic ula rl y ins e c ts and cr ustace ans. Freque ntly , the aquatic habitats targ eted f or larvic iding a

re te mporary or se mi- pe rm a ne nt. Pe rm a ne nt a qu a tic so ur c e s u su a lly c on ta in n a tur a l mo sq uit o pr e dator s su c h a s f

isha nddo no t r e qu ir e fu rthe r t re a tme nt, un le ss l itt or a l ve g e tatio n is so dense that it prevents natura l predation. Temporary sites such as tidal marshe s, flooded ag ricultural a

rea s, and woodland de pressions produc e prolific numbe rs of floodwater mos qu ito e s. Th e se sit e s a reg e ne rally

ve ry low in s pe c ie s d ive rs ity

du e to the tim e neede d for most specie s to locate and colonize them (Ward and B usch 1976, Pierce e t al
. 19 91 ). Whil e fl oo dw a te r m os qu ito e s d e ve lop du ri ng thefi rs t w e e k p os t- inu nd a tio n, it may take se vera l weeks f

or the fir st macro invertebrate pre dators to bec ome established. Finally , many

non-targ et spec ies exploi ting tempor ary aquatic ha

bitats are c apable of rec overing from loca liz ed population dec lines via rec oloniz ation from proximal area s. Currently used larvic ides, applied prope rly , have no know n phytotox ic ef fec ts. The use of

any pesticide a lway s involves a trade off be tween de sired ef fec ts (eff ective c on tr ol) a ndun de sir e d s idee ff e c ts. No kn ow n la

rv ic ide s a ree xemp t f

ro m th is conundrum. Eve n the see mingly innocuous use of pr edatory fish may result in anC hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 89

unwanted or

unknown impact on an a quatic community , howeve r tempora ry . More e ff e c tiv e me tho do log ie s a

rene e de d to app ly

larv ic ide s th a t w ill min imi ze u nd e sir able impacts. As a g roup, mosquito control ag encie s constantly seek ne w and be tter application tec hniques. Mosquito control professionals a re c ommitt ed to the development and evaluation of new mate rials, as shown by the ac tiviti es of numer ous university and mosquito control scientists around the state
. 

### 5 . 8 REF ERE NCE S AND G ENE RAL RE ADI NG Anonymous. 1948. Mosquit oes – Unwanted re sidents of Florida
. Florida Health Notes 40: 91-111. Anonymous. 1970. Mosquit o control and disea se pre vention. Fl or ida He alt h No te s 62: 171-194. Be cker , N., M. Z g omba, D. Petric, M. B eck and M. Ludwig . 1995. Role of larva l cadavers in re cy cling proce sses of Bacillus sphaericus
. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 11: 329-334. Boike , A.H. Sr. and C.B . Rathburn Sr. 1968. Tests of the r esistance of F lorida mosquitoes to ins ecticide s, 1967. Mo sq uito Ne ws 28: 313-316. Dame, D .A., G.H. Wichterman and J.A. Hornby . 1998. Mosquito ( Aede s taeniorhynchus ) re sistance to methopre ne in an isolated ha bitat. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 14: 200-203. De B arja c, H. 1990. Char acte rization and prospec tive view of Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is isr ae le ns is. In : De B arja c, H. and D.J . Sutherland (Eds.) . Ba cterial Control of Mosquitoes and Bla ck F lies. New B runswick, NJ: Rut g ers Unive rsity Press. De a n, T. W. a ndO. N. Ne sh e im. 19 98 . A pp lying pe sti c ide s c or re c tly : A g uid e fo r p ri vate and commer cial applicators, 6 Edition. University of F lorida Cooperative Ex tension th Service , I nstitut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es. Floore , T.G. 2006. Mosquito larval contr ol prac tices: past and pr esent. Journal of the American M

osquito Cont rol Association 22: 527-533. Floore , T.G., J.P . Smit h, K.R. Shaffe r and E.T . Schreibe r. 2002. L aboratory bioassay studies to determine methopre ne susce ptibili ty in a natura l population of Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus from the F lorida Ke y s. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 18: 111-113. Floore , T.G., J.C . Dukes, J.P . Cuda, E.T. Schre iber and M.J . Gre er. 1998. B VA 2 Mosquito larvicide – A ne w surfa ce oil larvicide for mosquito control. Journal of the American M

osquito Cont rol Association 14: 196-199.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 90

Goldberg , L .J . and J. Marg alit. 1977. A bacte rial spore demonstrating rapid larvicidal a c tiv ity a g a ins t An op he le s se rg e nti i , Ur an tae nia un gu ic ula te , Culex univatattus , Aede s ae gy ptiand Culex pipiens
. Mo sq uito Ne ws 37: 355-358. Henrick, C.A. 2007. Methopre ne. In : Floore , T.G. (Ed.)
. Biorational C ontrol of Mosquitoes
. Bulletin of the American Mosquito Control Association No . 7 . St L ou is, MO: Allen Press. Howar d, L .O. 1910. Preve ntive and re medial work a g ainst mosquitoes. W ashing ton: Government Printing Off ice. U.S. B ureau of Entomology Bulletin 88. Howar d, L .O. 1931. Mosquito remedies and preve ntives. Washington: Government Printing Off

ice. USDA F arme rs’ B ulletin No. 1570. Kellen, W.R. and C.M. Mey ers. 1964. Bacillus sphaericus Neide a s a pathog en of mosquitoes. Procee dings of the Cali fornia Mosquito C ontrol Association 32: 37
. L ace y , L .A. 1985. Bacillus thu rin gie ns is seroty pe H- 14. In: Chapman, H.C. (Ed.)
. Biological Contr ol of Mosquitoes
. Bulletin of the American Mosquito Control Association No. 6: 132-158. L ace y , L . 2007. Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is s e r o v ar i e t y isr ae le ns is and Bacillus sphaericus for mosquito control. In : Floore , T.G. (Ed.)
. Biorational C ontrol of Mosquit oes . Bulletin of the American Mosquito Control Association No. 7. St L ouis MO: Allen Press. L evy , R., J .J . Chiz zonit e, W.D. Gar rett and T.W. Miller J r. 1982. Eff icac y of the org anic surf

acefilm isost eary l alcohol containing two ox y ethy lene g roups for c ontrol of Culex and Ps orop ho ra mosquitoes: L aboratory and F ield studies. Mo sq uito Ne ws 42: 1- 11. L evy , R., C.M. P owell, and T.W. Miller J r. 1984. Investig ations on the mosquito control potential of formulations of Arosurf MSF and c onventional larvic ides. Mo sq uito Ne ws ® 44: 592-595. Mickle, R.E. 2002a. Swath c hara cterization and block variability for a g ranula r larvic ide application. REMSpC R eport 2002-04, A ug ust 26. Mickle, R.E. 2002b. Swath cha rac terization and pene tration studies for Ve ctobac 12AS Pasco County , FL . REMSpC Report 2002-06, July2. Mickle, R.E. 2004. Swath cha rac terization and pene tration studies for Ve ctobac G and CG Pasco County , FL . REMSpC Report 2004-02, July2. M i ck l e, R
. E
. 2 0 0 5
. S wa t h C h ar ac t er i z at i o n an dp en et ra t i o n o f T ek n arHP -D u s i n g l ar ge drop spray s. REMSpC Report 2005-05, Aug ust 23.C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 91

Mulrennan, J.A. 1958. Report No. 3. - Gr anular Paris Gre en larvicide, information and rec ommendations. Memorandum No. 20, F lorida State B oard of Hea lth, Bure au of Entomology , May

6. Mulrennan, J.R. 1982. Use of monomolecular surfa ce f ilms Arosurf 66-E2 by

Sherex Chemical Company , I nc., Memorandum No. 391, Florida Depa rtment of He alth and Rehabilitative Service s, Bur eau of Entomology , J acksonville, June 22. Mulrennan, J.R. 1983. Golden Be ar oil larvic ides for the control of mosquito larvae
. Me mor a nd um N o. 40 8, F lorida De pa rtme nt o f H e a ltha ndRe ha bil itativ e Se rv ic e s, Bur eau of Entomology , J acksonville, Nove mber 10. Mulrennan, J.R. 1986. Memorandum to B.W. Clements. Florida De partment of H ealth and Reha bilitative Services, B ureau of Entomology , J acksonville, Oc tober 17. Nay ar, J.K., Ed. 1985. Bionomics and phy siology of Aede s taeniorhynchus and Aede s sollicitans , th e sa lt m ars h mo sq uit oe s o f F lorida . A g ri c ultur a l E xpe ri me nt S tatio ns , I nstitut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es, Univer sityof F lorida, Gainesville. Nay ar, J.K. a ndA. Al i. 2003. A re view of monomolec ular surf acefilms as larvicides and pupac ides of mosquitoes. Journal of Vector Biology 28: 190-199. Patterson, G. 2004. The Mosquito Wars: A History of Mosquito Control i n Florida
. Gainesville, F L : University Press of F lorida. Pierce , R.H. , R.C
. Br own, K.R. Har dman, M.S. Henry , C.L . Palmer, T.W. Mill er and G. Wichterman. 1989. F ate and tox icity of temephos a

pplied to an intertidal mang rove community
. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 5: 569-578. Pierce , R.H., M.S. Henry , A. Ames, T. Conner , T.J . Evans, M.R. L evi and J. W eeks. 19 91 . Impa c t a sse ssm e nt o f m os qu ito larv ic ide s o n n on targ e t or g a nis ms i n a sa ltm ars h community
. Final Report, Contract LP50, Florida HRS, Entomology Serv ices
. Rathburn, C.B. Jr. and A.H. B oike Sr. 1967. Studies of insecticide r esistance in Florida mosquitoes . M

os qu ito Ne ws 27: 377-382. Rog e rs , A .J. a ndC.B . Rathb urn, Jr. 1 96 4. Pr e se nt s tatus of ins e c tic ide s f

or mos qu ito control in Florida
. Mo sq uito Ne ws 24: 286-291. Sacher , R.M. 1971. A mosquit o larvicide with favora ble environme ntal properties. Mo sq uito Ne ws 31: 513-516. Sc hu ste r, D. J. an d P. A. Sta ns ly . 2 00 6. B ior a tio na l in se c tic ide s f or int e g rate d p e st manag ement in tomatoes. ( http:// edis.ifas.ufl.e du/IN481 )C hapt er 5: Larvi ci de s and Larvi ci di ng Page 92

Staal, G.B . 1975. I nsect g rowth re g ulators with juvenile hormone a ctivity
. In : Smi th, R.F., T.E. Mittle and C.N. Smith (Eds.). Annual Revie w of Entomology. Vo l 20 . Pa lo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc. Singer , S. 1985. Bacillus sphaericus (B acte ria). In : Chapman, H.C. (Ed.). Biological Control of

Mosquitoes
. Bulletin of the American Mosquito Control Association No. 6: 123-131. Ward, D.V. and D.A. B usch. 1976. Eff ects of te mephos, an org anophosphorous insecticide, on survival and esc ape be havior of the marsh cr ab Uca pugnax
. OIKOS 27: 331-335. W i l l i a m s o n , C
. R
. 1 9 9 9
. B i o r a t i o n a l p e s t i c i d e s : W h a tar e t h e y a n yw a y? ( htt p:/ /w ww .g c sa a .o rg/g c m/1 99 9/o c t99 /10 bio ratio na l.h tml )C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 93 

### C ha pte r 6 ADU LT I CI DE S AN D A DUL TI CI DI NG C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : Ma r k L a t h a m a nd D r . J ane B onds 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r s : D r. Ja m es D u kes a nd J am e s R obi ns on
Summ ary Che mi c al t re atm e nt f

or ad ult mo sq uitoe s –

ad ult ic idi ng – is the mo st visible form of mosquito control. In Florida, ground and aerial applications for one or more of the state’s more than 80 mosquito specie s are com mon ye ar-round. These applications may be for pestiferous mo sq uitoe s o r m os qu ito e s th at v e c tor dis e as e . Th e sp ra

y tre atm e nts typically are U

ltra L ow Volume. Adult ic ide s u se d in Fl or ida inc lud e ma lat hio n, na le d, c hlo rpy rif

os , perme thrin, resmethrin, sumithrin, and ot her products. The dec ision about which material to use is based on several factors including the e ffi c ac y as de te rm ine d b

y sc ie nti fic all y c on du c te d fi e ld t ria ls, mo sq uito specie s susceptibility, safety, and cost. The insecticide c hoice is made by e ac h m os qu ito c on tro l ag e nc y an d v ar ie s th ro ug ho ut t he sta te du e to differing mosquito s

pecie s and application requirements. Applications are made to coincide with mosquito fli ght activity so that the insecticidedroplets contact the target insects and to avoid the flight activity of nontar ge t in se c ts s uc h a s b e e s a nd bu tte rfl ie s. Traini ng and certification are an integral part of adult iciding operations. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Serv ices ov ersee s the c e rti fic ati on of p ub liche alt

h p e sti c ide ap

pli c ato rs a nd

ro uti ne ly inspects mosquito control operations. Thi s inspection chec ks surve illance re c or ds to v e rif y the ne e d fo r c he mi c al a pp lic ati on s a nd

re v ie ws ap pli c ati on me tho ds an d a mo un ts. 

### 6. 1 INTRODUCTION Pest manag ement tec hniques aremany and var ied: mechanical, cultura l, biologica l, and c he mic a l. T re a tme nt o f a du lt m os qu ito e s – a du lti c idi ng – is a c hie ve d e nti re ly via pesticide a

pplications targ eted to adult mosquitoes. The proc ess of a dulticiding is a step wi se pr oc e ss that of

te n is c on sid e re d th e me tho d o f l a st r e so rt in an Inte g rate d Pe st Ma na g e me nt ( I PM) app ro a c h to mos qu ito c on tr ol. I nf ormatio n o n th e bio log y

of thepe st org anism is required, and thresholds must be determined befor e tre atments beg in. Once the thresholds havebeen me t, the targ et is defined a s fly ing inse cts, a ba rrier (veg etation), and/or a solid surface . Then, the a ppropriate equipment and c hemical must be c hosen,C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 94

a ndtheapp lic a tio n mu st b e ma de in a tim e ly fa sh ion . T he c he mic a l do se a ndty pe ha s a sig nif ic a nt e ff e c t ontheou tc omeof

a n a pp lic a tio n. Th e c he mic a l mu st r e a c h th e a du lt mosquito t hroug h the most appropriate use of available methods. Spa c e sp ray s ty

pic a lly us e Ul tr a L ow Vo lum e (U LV) te c hn olo g y , s ome tim e s r e fe rr e d to a s c oldfo g g ing . Sp a c e sp ray s a reapp lie d w ithsp e c ia lize d s pr a y e qu ipm e nt m ou nte d in airc raf t, on the back of

trucks, or e ven ca

rried by hand. With space spray s, aer osols are rele ased to drif

t throug h a tar g et zone. Chemical conc entrates most often areused and, e ve n if dil ute d, vo lum e s o f m a te ri a l us e d r e ma in l ow . T he a e ro so l pe rs ist s inthea ir column for an appre ciable le ng th of time at suitable droplet de nsities to contact the flying mosquito and is onlyeff

ective w hile the droplets re main airborne . Henc e, a spa ce spr ay is s ho rt -l ive d andis n ot e xpe c te d to ha ve a ny re sid ua l e ff

e c t. Where a more long -term e ffe ct is require d, residual spray ing is e mploy ed. In this case, themos qu ito is r e qu ir e d to la ndon a su rf a c e de po sit

of theins e c tic ideto p ic k u p a toxic dose. Residual spray s often ar e re fer red to a s barrier or surfac e tre atments. A bar rier tr e a tme nt i s a

pp lie d to pr e ve nt a du lt m os qu ito e s f ro m mo vin g int o an a

re a su c h a s a stadium, park, or r esident’s y ard and often is applied with a modifie d vehicle mounted hy draulic spr ay er. Intere st in thi s technique is continuing to develop in Florida. A surfa ce tr eatment is used to kill and/or exclude adults from a harbor ag e ar ea or

resting sit e of te n a ro un d th e ho me . B e c aus e theare a s tr e a te d a reg e ne rally

sma ll, hand he ld d e v i c e s s u c h a s a

b a c kp a c k

m i s tb l o w e r

o r a c o m p r e s s i o n s p r a y e r

ar e e m p l o y e d
. In Florida , surfa ce spr ay s are used primarily in urban pe st manag ement sce narios and a re ra re ly us e d b y mos qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc ie s. Adulticides arebroad- spectrum pe sticides and that havethe potential to impact nontarg et org anisms. Space spraying r elies on the pre vailing me teorolog y to car ry the pesticide a s small droplets (ae rosols) to and throug h the targ et ar ea, w hich incre ases the probability

of off -targ et drift. To minimiz e the potential f or environme ntal impact, the applicator needs to unde rstand the methods and equipment used and the potential risks involved. This chapter

discusses cur

rent and historical adulticiding and best mana g ement pra ctices us e d b y mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i n F lorida . F or a dis c us sio n o n th e ri sk s a ndbe ne fi ts of a du lti c idi ng , s e e Cha

pte r 9 , M os qu ito Con tr ol B e ne fi ts andRis ks
. 6. 1. 1 Sur ve ill anc e and T hr e sho lds Ac c ur a te de te c tio n anda sse ssm e nt o f the c ur re nt m os qu ito po pu latio n is e sse nti a l a ndis achie ved throug h reg ular monitoring and surve illance pr og rams. Mosquito numbers and distribution patterns are assessed, and this surveillance data is used to determine the are a (s ) t o b e tr e a te d. Surve ill a nc e me tho ds to g a the r this data va ry a mon g mos qu ito control prog rams and a

re discusse d in the Chapter 3, Mosquito Surveillance and Environmental Monitoring . Adulticiding should be c onsidered to be the last resort and c on du c te d o nly

wh e n la rv ic idi ng a ndc ultur a l c on tr ol m e tho ds areno t pr a c tic a l du e toC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 95

c on c e rn s a

bo ut s e ns iti ve ha

bit a ts, or wh e n th e se me tho ds ha ve faile d, a nda du lt thresholds have been e x cee ded. When chemica ls must be used, I PM strateg ies aim to max imiz e on-ta rg et deposition and min imi ze o ff

-t arg e t de po sit ion . A du lt m os qu ito c on tr ol v ia a e ro so l app lic a tio n is extremely complex, because it attempts to control numerous specie s over va st area s and chang ing ha

bitats in a three- dimensional space . Thresholds, which a re the key stone of most ag ricultural IPM progr ams, aredifficult to establish in mosquit o control. To tre at or not to treat is typically

a re sponse to a nuisanc e leve l or an individual perc eption of the problem, rather than a

quantifiable pr esenc e or a bsenceof mosquitoes. Thresholds can chang e with time and location as the human population’s tolerance to biting chang es. Whe n th e reareiss ue s o f p ub lic he a lth , ty pic a l th re sh old s c a n b e su pe rs e de d b y c ri te ri a described in approve d emer g ency response plans. Setting a r ealistic trig g er or action thre shold for mana g ement dec isions is specific to eac h mosquito control prog ram and must be in compliance w ith Section 5E-13.036 of the Florida Administrative Code. Once all the criteria ha ve bee n met to treat an are a, the appropriate application may be initiated.
6. 1. 2 Tim ing Timing is essential f

or spac e spray s to targ et ac tively fly ing mosquitoes. The timing ne e ds to b e pr e c isebe c aus e dif fe re nt s pe c ie s a

rea c tiv e a t di ff

e re nt time s. I n g e ne ral, most mosqui to species tar g eted by spacespray s fly

in the cre puscular hour s, and, henc e, mos t a du lti c ideapp lic a tio ns oc c ur in the c re pu sc ula

r h ou rs . Pr ob le ms m a y

ari se wi th timing applications because : 1) the meteor ology

is inappropriate for g ood downwind dispersa l 2) c on tin uo us late nig hts a ndov e rtime c a n c aus e pe rs on ne l mana g e me nt p ro ble ms 3) g ro un d s pr a y

mis sio ns arety

pic a lly no t c on du c te d w he n p e op le areon thestr e e ts Some targ eted spe cies a

re not a ctive during the cr epuscula r hours. The Anopheline malaria vector , Anopheles quadrimac ulatus in F lorida , e xhibi t a no c turna l a c tiv ity pattern. The y

aremost active in the middle of the nig ht when their blood hosts (humans and other mammals) ar e slee ping and usually exhibi t no daytime activity . Florida ’s common domestic mosquitoes, Ae de s a e gy ptiand Aede s albopictus , areday -biters or diurnal. They

tend to have pe aks of a ctivity during the hours af

ter sunrise and the hours befor e sunset with less ac tivityduring the heat of the day and little to no activity

at nig ht. Their a ctivity

coincides w ith the times of highe st vehicular tr aff ic in their urban environments and poor

meteorolog y

(unstable atmospheric conditions) making aerial or truc k a du lti c idi ng bo th i mpr a c tic a l a ndine ff e c tiv e . L oc a lize d s po t tr e a tme nts wi th hand he ld e qu ipm e nt a

retheon ly

e ff e c tiv e a du lti c idi ng me tho d f or the se sp e c ie s at th is time.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 96

Meteorolog ical par ameter s also influencemosquito activityand timing of the application. Some ge nera l trends ar e:

• I nc re a se d h umi dity

= inc re a se d a c tiv ity
• In c r e a s e dt e m p e r a t u r e = i n c r e a s e da c t i v i t y ( t o a l i m i tab o v e w h i c h a c t i v i t y de c re a se s)
• I nc re a se d w ind= de c re a se d a c tiv ity
• Lunar illumination = incre ased a ctivity and an e x tended a ctivity

period The a ctivity

of some mosquito species is more a ffe cted by meteorolog ical par ameter s than th e a c tiv ity

of oth e r s pe c ie s. Th e princ ipal ve c tor of St. L ou is e nc e ph a lit is i n Florida , Culex nigripalpus , is a prime example; it is very sensitive to meteorolog ical c hang e s. Timing of r esidual spray ing is not nea rly as critical as the timing of spacespraying. Residual spraying ta

rg ets the mosquito in harborag e at r est on veg etation or other surfa ces. A n eff

ective r esidual spray

uniformly

coats a targ et surfa ce w ith an insecticide that will last an appre ciable le ng th of time. Applications should be conduc ted when conditions are c onducive to provide the best cove rag e. Timing is not critical in relation to mosquit o behavior ; instead, applications mustbe made to achievethe best deposit. Winds should be low or fa vorable to the direc tion of the targ et re lated to the spray er. Conditi ons should be dry since while most compounds ar e conside red r ain-fa st, they need time to dry
. 6.1.3 Choosin g the Chem ical On c e theapp lic a tio n ty

pe ha s b e e n d e te rm ine d, thec he mic a l to be app lie d andthedo se rate must be selecte d. This decision is dictated in part by the size of the application area
. For example, larg e ar ea spr aying w ith some compounds can be cost prohibitive. The habitat can have some influence . For example, the use of some c hemicals may have to be restric ted ar ound waterway s. The spec ies that is being targ eted a lso may aff ect the c ho ic e of c omp ou nd . T he c omp arativ e e ff ic a c y of on e c omp ou ndov e r ano the r i s disputable, but one thing that is known is the effe ct that mosquito species, habitat pref ere nce, and behavior

has on ea se of c ontrol. For e x ample, Psorophora columbiae in open fie ld is a species that is ge nera lly considere d easy

to knock down, so re duced dose s may be applied. O n the other hand, Cx. nigripalpus is a cry ptic specie s that often is not active unle ss meteorolog ical conditions arejust right. Maximum label rates and pe rfe ct timing may

be re quired to g et enoug h of the spray cloud into the wooded a

rea s to achieve signific ant control of Cx. nigripalpus
. 

### 6 . 2 ADUL TI CI DES US ED I N F LO RI DA Pesticides kill or alter an or g anism by disrupting some vital phy siologica l function. The method by

which this occur s is called the pe sticide’s mode of a ction. The most typical mod e of a c tio n in vo lve s d isr

up tio n o f the ins e c t’ s n e rv ou s sy ste m. O ne va ri a tio n is insect g rowth re g ulators which mimic insect hormone s and disrupt the insect’ sC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 97

development. Also, soaps and oils affe ct the exoskeleton of the insec t, causing the insect to s uf fo c ate or de sic c a te . T he mod e of

a c tio n o f m os qu ito a du lti c ide s, ho we ve r, is o nly throug h disruption of neurona l activity . Gene ral de scriptions of the pesticide classes a re pr ov ide d h e rea lon g wi th s pe c if ic inf ormatio n o n th e ind ivi du a l c omp ou nd s u se d in Florida
. Desc riptions of individual compounds include the mode of a ction, g ener al uses, and non50 targ et tox icity

data. Thetox icity

data is pre sented a s an L C , the lethal conc entration 50 that will kill 50 perc ent of the ta rg et population. The L C is the most universal measure and allows for

comparisons on relative non-ta rg et mortality

betwee n chemicals. W here possible, tox icity

data wa s acc umulated using the Re-r eg istration EligibilityDec isions (RED) of the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (EPA). RED data, howeve r, ar e not a vaila blefo r all the c omp ou nd s u se d inmos qu ito c on tr ol. Whe n d a ta wa s n ot availa

ble from the RED, the Pesticide Manual (2000) , a world compendium of pesticide data, was consulted, and information from this source is mar ked with an a sterisk (*). Further comment on risk assessment, pe sticide fate , and the r e-r eg istration proce ss is outsi de the scope of this document. The F lorida De partment of A g riculture and Consumer Service (F DACS) trac ks and ov e rs e e s p e sti c ideus a g e by mos qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc ie s inF lorida . Pe sti c ideus a g e re po rt s (in PDF format) dating back to F Y 1997-98 a re a vailable f

or download at htt p:/ /w ww .f la e s. or g /a e s- e nt/mos qu ito /r e po rt s. htm l
. 6.2.1 Organoph osph ates - Ge neral Desc ription Org anophosphate s (OP) g ener ally areacute ly

tox ic and wor

k by inhibiti ng important enzy mes of the ne rvous sy stem that play a vital role in the transmissi on of nerve impulses. Nerve impulses usuallytrave l along neurons ( nervecells) by way of ele ctrica l signa ls. Howeve r, at the junc tion between two ne urons (a sy napse) and betwe en a ne uron and a musc le (ne uromuscular junction), the impulse is transmitted in the form of a c he mic a l su bs ta nc e (n e ur otr a ns mitte r) . T he ne ur otr a ns mitte r o pe ratin g in the auto no mic ne rv ou s sy ste m, n e ur omu sc ula r j un c tio ns , andpa

rt s o f the c e ntr a l ne rv ou s sy ste m is a c e ty lc ho lin e . In b a sic te rm s, a c e ty lc ho lin e fi re s th e ne rv e imp uls e . A c e ty lc ho lin e is br ok e n d ow n andina c tiv a te d inmil lis e c on ds by thee nzyme c ho lin e ste ra se . With e x p o s u r e t o O P s , c h o l i n e s t e r a s e i s i n h i b i t e d , a n da b u i l d

- u p o f

a c e t y l c h o l i n e o c c u r s . If ace ty lcholine is not broken down, the ne rve impulse does not stop, ultimately causing para ly sis of the insect and e ventually death. Theorg anophosphate s used in Florida include malathion, nale d, and ra rely , chlorpy

rifos.
6.2.1.1 Malathion Malathion is used for both g round and a eria l adulticide applications. I n FY 2004- 05, malathion treatments constituted 17.6% of all the ac rea g e spray ed by g round adulticiding but only 1.3% of the a cre ag e tre ated by aerial application.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 98

Mode of Ac tion : Malathion is a non-sy stemic contac t stomach poison with respiratory action. Malathion is used to control Coleoptera, Dipter a, He miptera, Hymenoptera , and L epidoptera

in a wide r ang e of c rops. It also is used ext ensively to control major arthropod dise ase ve ctors (Culicidae ) in public hea lth prog rams, ec to-para sites of animals, household insects, and f or the prote ction of stored g rain produc ts. L ike all of the OPs, malathion has one of the lowest mammalian toxi cities. One disadvantag e is that it has been use d for a

long time r esulting in many case s of localized re sistance. M ala th ion Tox ic olo gy : C las s II I

50 M am m al s Ac u t e o ra l LD fo r r at s 3 9 0 m g/k g

50 Birds L C (8d) f or a ring ne cked phe asant 2369 mg /kg

50 Fish L C (69h) f or a B lueg ill sunfish 30 ppb I nv e rt e br a te s Daphnia magna (48hr) 1.0 ppb

50 *Be es LD (topical 0.71 μg /bee)
6.2.1.2 Naled Naled is the primary

chemical used in aerial adulticiding in F lorida. In FY 2004- 05 n al ed ap p l i ca t i o n s co n s t i t u t ed 9 6
. 6 % o f t h e t o t al ar eas p ra y ed b y ai rc ra ft
. Al t h o u gh labeled f or g round adulticiding , no naled f ormulations wereused for this purpose during this period. Mo de of Ac tio n: N a le d is a

no n- sy ste mic c on ta c t andsto ma c h p ois on wi th s ome respiratory

action. Na led is used to control spider mites, aphids, and other insec ts on ma ny c ro ps . It a lso is u se d ina nim a l ho us e s a ndin p ub lic he a lthfo r c on tr ol o f i ns e c ts such as f lies, ants, flea s, cockr oache s, and extensively for the c ontrol of mosquitoes. Na le d b re aks do wnra

pid ly in the e nv ir on me nt. Th is p ro du c t, h ow e ve r, is h ig hly corr osive and ther efor e re quires spec ial consideration in handling and e quipment desig n.

Na le d Tox ic olo gy : C las s I

50 Mammals Acute or al LD for r ats 92 - 371 mg /kg

50 Birds Canada g oose L C 36.9 mg/kg

50 Fish L C (24hr) for: Blue g ill sunfish 2.2 ppb L ake tr out 87 ppb Fathead minnow 3.3 ppb I nv e rt e br a te s Daphnia magna 0.3 ppb Be es 0.48 μg ai/beeC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 99

6.2.1.3 Chlorpyrif

os Only two counties used c hlorpy rifos in FY 2005-06. One county applied a 13.25% formulation to 620 acr es, while another c ounty applied a 5% formulation to 71,000 acr es. This quantity

was not sig nificant e noug h to be counted a s a per centa g e of a dulticiding reported to FDA CS. Mo de of a c tio n: C hlo rp yri fo s is a no n- sy ste mic c on ta c t a ndsto ma c h p ois on wi th respiratory

action. Chlorpy

rifos is used to control Coleoptera , Diptera , Homoptera , and L epidoptera

in soil and on foliag e. It also is used in the control of household pe sts, for pu bli c he a lthmos qu ito c on tr ol, a ndin anim a l ho us e s. It is ra re ly us e d inmos qu ito control in Florida
. Chl or pyr ifos Tox ic olo gy : C las s II

50 Mammals Acute LD for Rats 97 mg /kg

50 Birds Mallard duc k L C 136 ppb

50 Fish L C for: Blue g ill sunfish 1.8 ppb Fathead minnow 0.57 ppb Atlantic silverside 0.28 ppb

50 I nv e rt e br a te s Da ph nia L C 0.1 ppb *Be es Tox ic to bees 70 ng/ bee
6.2.2 P yrethroids – Gener al Descr iption Pyrethroids a

re synthetic che micals whose struc tures mimic the natura l insecticide pyrethrum. Py

rethrins a re f ound in the flower

heads of some plants belong ing to the family Astera cae( e.g., c hry sa nth e mum s) . T he se ins e c tic ide s h a ve theabil ity to knockdown insec ts quickly . Pyrethrums c an be de g rade d very easily by ultraviolet light which oxidi zes the compounds. I n g ener al, this phenomenon lea ds to lower environmenta l risk. Pyrethroids c an pose sig nificant ha zards to aquatic or g anisms, and thepo te nti a l f

or bu ildup wi thi n s e dim e nt i s a c on c e rn . Py

re thr oid s a

rehig hly toxic to ins e c t pe sts a t ve ry low rate s (o ft e n on e or de r of ma g nitud e le ss than OPs ). Sy nth e tic py re thr oid s h a ve be e n c he mic a lly a lte re d to make the m mo resta ble a ndsa fe r t o mammals. Pyrethroids a

re ax onic poisons; they

poison the nerve fiber by binding to a protein in nerve s called the voltag e-g ated sodium channel. Norma lly , this protein opens causing stimul ation of the ne rve and closes to terminate the nerve sig nal. Pyrethroids bind to this g ate and preve nt it from closing normally which re sults in continuous nerve stimul ation. Control of the nervous sy stem is lost , producing uncoordinated movement and ultimately

mortality
.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 100

6 . 2 . 2 . 1 Py re th ru m Pyrethrum is used in F lorida as an aerial adulticide but ac counted f or only 0.12% of the total acr eag e spray ed in FY2004-05. Mode of Ac tion: P yrethrum binds to sodium channels prolong ing the ir opening and there by cause s para ly sis with death occur ring later. It has a non-sy stemic contac t action and some a caricidal ac tivity . Pyrethrum is used to contr ol a wide r ang e of insec ts and mites in publi c health and ag riculture. It normally is combined with sy nerg ists that inhibit detox ification by

the insect. A be nefit to its use is that it i s considere d to be a natur a lly oc c ur ri ng c omp ou nda ndthe re fo remor e e nv ir on me ntally a c c e pta ble . It a lso br e aks do wnra

pid ly in s un lig ht, so it h a s f

e w n e g a tiv e re sid ua l e ff

e c ts. P yr e th r umTox ic olo gy : C las s II I

50 Mammals Acute or al LD for r ats 700 mg /kg f or 57% ai

50 Birds Ora l L D Mallard duc k 5,620 mg/kg Fish Tox ic to fish 50 L C (9 6h ) f

or : Ra inb ow tr ou t 5. 1 μg/l She e ps he a d mi nn ow 16 μg /l

50 I nv e rt e br a te s Daphnia magna L C 11 .6 μg /l 50 My sidshri mp L C 1. 4 μg/l *B e e s To xic t o b e e s b ut e xhibi ts re pe llant e ff e c t 50 LD (ora l) 22 ng /bee ( contac t) 130-290 ng/bee
6. 2. 2. 2 P e r m e th r in Permethrin is labele d for g round adulticiding in Florida and is the primary chemical used fo r this ty pe of app lic a tio n. Pe rm e thrin c a n b e us e d f or a e ri a l a du lti c idi ng in F lorida wi th specific FDA CS permission. I t was applied to 76.7% of the total acr eag e tre ated by g round adulticiding in FY 2004- 05. Mode of Ac tion: P erme thrin is a non-sy stemic insecticide w ith contact and stomac h action. Perme thrin is effe ctive on a br oad rang e of pe sts. Bene fits include g ood residual activity on treated plants, lack of phytotox icity

when use d as direc ted, and low ma mma lian to xici ty . A dd iti on a lly , it is o ne of thele a st e xpe ns ivec omp ou nd s a vaila ble for a dulticiding. A disadvantag e is that it is highly tox ic to aquatic or g anisms.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 101

P e r m e th r in To xic olo gy : C las s II

50 Mammals Acute L C for r ats 8,900 mg /kg

50 Birds LD Mallard duc k >10,000 ppm

50 Fish L C (96h) f or: Atlantic silverside 2.2 ppb B lue g ill su nf

ish0. 79 μg /l I nv e rt e br a te s * Da ph nia 0. 6 μg/l My sid shrimp 0.019 ppb

50 B e e s To xic t o b e e s LD (2 4h ) 0 .0 24 μg

Be e topical 0.13 μg /bee
6. 2. 2. 3 Re sm e th r in Re sme thrin i s u se d f

or bo th g ro un d anda e ri a l a du lti c idi ng . In F Y 2 00 4- 05 , r e sme thrin wa s ap p l i ed t o 4
. 5 % o f t h e t o t al ac re age fo r gr o u n dad u l t i ci d i n g an d1
. 5 % o f t h e a cr ea ge for a eria l adulticiding. Mo de of Ac tio n: R e sme thrin i s a

no n- sy ste mic ins e c tic idewi th c on ta c t a c tio n andis a po te nt c on ta c t in se c tic idee ff e c tiv e a g a ins t a

wi de rang e of

ins e c ts. It of

te n u se d in c omb inatio n w ithmor e pe rs ist e nt i ns e c tic ide s. B e ne fi ts i nc lud e ra pidmos qu ito knockdown pr operties and a low mammalian toxicity . It is photo-labile so does not pe rs ist . T he dis a dv a nta g e s a rethat it is h ig hly toxic to a qu a tic or g a nis ms andre lativ e ly expensive. Re sm e th r in To xic it y: Cl as s II I

50 M am m al s Ac u t e o ra l LD fo r r at s >4 6 3 9 m g/k g

50 Birds LD for bobwhite quail >5000 ppb

50 50 Fish L C (96h) f or: Rainbow trout L C 0.28 ppb Sheepshea d minnow 11 ppb I nv e rt e br a te s Daphnia magna 3.10 ppb

Pink shrimp 1.3 ppb

50 Be es Tox ic to bees LD 0.063 μg/bee(conta ct)
6. 2. 2. 4 La m bda- c yha lothr in L a mbd a -c yha lothrin i s n ot l ist e d intheF DA CS r e po rting fo r 2 00 4- 05 , b ut s ome prog rams now use it for bar rier tr eatments.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 102

Mode of Ac tion: L ambda- cyhalothrin is a non-sy stemic insecticide w ith contact and stomach ac tion and repe llant properties. L ambda- cyhalothrin provides ra pid knockdown a ndha s a lon g re sid ua l a c tiv ity . It is us e d to c on tr ol a wi de rang e of

ins e c t pe sts in a g ri c ultur e a ndpu bli c he a lth . B e ne fi ts o f this ba rrie r p ro du c t in c lud e its re lativ e ly sa fe ty marg in to mammals and a long residual a ctivity
. Lam bda- c yha lothr in To xic olo gy : C las s II

50 *Mammals Acute or al LD for r ats 79 mg /kg

50 *Birds Acute or al LD for Ma llard ducks > 3950 mg/kg

50 *F ish L C (9 6h ) f or : B lue g ill su nf

ish0. 21 μg /l Ra inb ow tr ou t 0. 36 μg /l

50 *Inv e rt e br a te s Da

ph nia EC (4 8h ) 0 .3 6 μg/l

50 *Be es LD (ora l) 38 ng /bee ( contac t) 909 ng /bee
6. 2. 2. 5 Cy flut hr in Cy fl uth ri n is no t li ste d intheF DA CS r e po rting fo r 2 00 4- 05 , b ut s omepr og rams n ow us e it f or ba rrie r t re a tme nts
. Mode of Ac tion: C y fluthrin is a non-sy stemic insecticide w ith contact and stomac h action that ac ts on the nervous sy stem. It has a ra pid knockdown and long residual a c tiv ity . Cyfl uth ri n is e ff e c tiv e a g a ins t many

pe sts in c ro ps a nda lso is u se d a g a ins t migr atory locusts and g rasshoppe rs. It can be used ag ainst Blattidae , Culicidae, and Mu sc ida e in p ub lic he a lthsituatio ns . Cy flut hr in To xic olo gy : C las s II

50 *Mammals Acute or al LD for r ats 500 mg /kg

50 *Birds Acute or al LD for bobwhite quail >2000 mg/kg

50 *F ish L C (9 6h ) f or : Go lde n o rf

e 3. 2 μg/l Ra inb ow tr ou t 0. 6 μg/l B lue g ill su nf

ish1. 5 μg/l *Be es Tox ic to bees
6. 2. 2. 6 Bife nt hr in B if e nth ri n is no t li ste d intheF DA CS r e po rting fo r 2 00 4- 05 , b ut s omepr og rams n ow us e it for bar rier tr eatments.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 103

Mode of Ac tion: Bifenthrin is a pe sticide with non-sy stemic contac t and stomach a ction. B if e nth ri n is e ff

e c tiv e a g a ins t a

br oa d r a ng e of

fo lia r p e sts a ndis a

pr e fe rr e d r e sid ua l; howeve r, it is not compatible with alkaline materials. Bife nt hr in To xic olo gy : C las s II

50 *Mammals Acute or al LD for r ats 54.5 mg /kg

50 *Birds Acute or al LD for: Bobtail 18 mg/kg Mallard duc ks 2150 mg/kg

50 *F ish L C (9 6h ) f or : B lue g ill su nf

ish0. 35 μg /l Ra inb ow tr ou t 0. 15 μg /l

50 *Inv e rt e br a te s Da

ph nia L C (4 8h ) 0 .1 6 μg/l

50 *Be es LD (ora l) 0.1 μg/be e (c ontact) 0.01462 μg /bee
6. 2. 2. 7 D- phe nothr in D-p hen ot hri n (s um it hri n) i s l abel ed fo r bo th groun d an d aer ial us e in Flo ri da. I n FY 2004-05 it was used to tre at 1.1% of the total acr eag e for g round adulticiding and 0.3% of the total acr eag e for

aerial adulticiding. Mode of Ac tion: D-phenothrin is a non-sy stemic pesticide with conta ct and stomac h action. D- phenothrin provides r apid knockdown. It is used to control injurious and nuisance insects of public he alth importance and to protec t stored g rain. D- phe nothr in To xic it y: Cl as s II I

50 *Mammals Acute or al LD rats 5000 mg /kg

50 *Birds Acute or al LD bobtail quail >2500 mg /kg

50 *F ish L C fo r: Ra inb ow tr ou t 2. 7 μg/l B lue g ill su nf

ish16 μg /l

50 *Inv e rt e br a te s Da

ph nia EC (4 8h r) 0. 00 43 mg /l


### 6. 3 METEOROLOGY I ncre ased unde rstanding of meteor ology and the integ ration of de tailed meteor ologic al d a t a i n t o r o u t i n e o p e r a t i o n s ar e s o m e o f t h e m a j o r d e v e l o p m e n t s i n r e c e n tye ar s . C l e ar l y, the meteor ology

at time of application mustbe conside red and, wher e pra ctical, the application should wait for conditions conducive to succ essful dispersa l of the spray . Many new methods for

measure ment and log g ing of meteorolog y

at the time of application ar e available to mosquito control prog rams. Ne tworks of loca l meteorolog ical stations can beacc essed f or fr ee thr oug h websites such a sC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 104

http:// weather.we ather

bug .comor http:// www.we ather underg round.com . Detailed information, there fore , on weather is available to all prog rams with a minimal fiscal outlay . At the other e nd of the spec trum, highly sensitive anemomete rs ar e available for installation at the office , on a loca l tower, or e ven on the a pplication equipment. An anemomete r installed on the application equipment is best since it provides detailed information at the time and the location of the a pplication. A sing le location meteorolog ical sourc e may not be appr opriate f

or a c oastal county

beca use one pa

rt of thec ou nty

may be e xpe ri e nc ing thee ff

e c ts o f c oa sta l me te or olo g y , w hil e a t th e sa me time inland are as may

be on the other

side of a “ sea- bree ze front” and experiencing totally differ ent weather. Every eff ort should be made by

prog rams to equip and e ducate themselves about the eff ects of me teorolog y

on adulticiding. G iven the drople t siz e spec trum that is applied for spa ce spr ay s, meteorolog y is the primary

parameter c ontrolling drople t dispersal.


### 6. 4 DROPLET S IZ E Although me teorolog y

is considere d to be the primary conce rn for

spacespray s as the c lou d p ro du c e d is hig hly

su bje c t to me te or olo g ic a l c hang e , dro ple t si ze i s still e xtre me ly important. Unlike atmospheric conditions, droplet siz e is controllable. Ce rtain droplet size s w ill be mor e lik e ly

to p ro vid e e ff

e c tiv e c on tr ol, a ndoth e r s ize d dro ple ts w ill be los t e ith e r d ow nw indor

to the g ro un d. It is the re fo repa rtic ula rl y imp orta nt f

or op e rator s to be familiar with the appropriate drople t siz e distribution for the application at hand. The descriptive statisti cs of a dulticide plumes important to mosqui to control relate a particula r droplet size being produce d to the volume proportion (volume pe rce ntag e) of the cloud compose d of drops e qual to or smaller than the droplet size of intere st. Withtheimp le me ntatio n o f n e w a du lti c idela be l r e qu ir e me nts in 2 00 6, thesp ray plu me statistics have bee n chang ed. A spray plume descriptive statisti c wa s neede d which, like thevo lum e me dian d ia me te r ( VM D) , r e late s p lum e vo lum e a nddr op size bu t th a t c ou ld be applied to an infinite number of volume pe rce ntag es or dr op siz es. The D iameter Volume (Dv) is such a statistic. The diame ter volume is a de cimal value be tween 0 and 1 which re lates the volume proportion of the spray cloud to the drop diame ter at which the cloud is made of dr ops equal or sma ller to this drop diameter and whose c umulative volume equals the pr oportion of intere st. The diameter volume for the size drop at which 50% of the spr ay

volume is composed of drops e qual to in diameter and smaller, written as Dv 0.5, re prese nts the same value as VMD or mass median diamete r (MMD) . The diame te r v olu me c a n p ro vid e thesize dr op a t w hic h 1 0% of thesp ray vo lum e is composed of this drop diame ter and smaller [Dv 0.1] as well as the 90% va lue [Dv 0.9]
. Th e c omb inatio n o f D v 0 .1 , D v 0 .5 a ndDv 0. 9 p ro vid e s a n u nd e rs ta nd ing of thewh ole d ro p l ets i z e d i s tri b u t i o n t h ata p ar t i cu l ars p ra y s y s t em i s p ro d u ci n g. The ne w adulticide labe l require ments (PR 2005-1) implemented in 2006 placetwo require ments on the applicator:C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 105 1) Use spray

nozz les for w hich thereexis ts the capa bilityto maintain the spray cloud within the Dv 0.5 and Dv 0.9 r equire ment of the labe l. For r ece ntly approve d la be ls, ty pic a l up pe r l imi ts a

rea s f oll ow s: Ground Adulticiding : Dv 0.5 < 30 micr ons and Dv 0.9 < 50 microns Aerial Adulticiding: Dv 0.5< 60 micr ons and Dv 0.9 < 100 microns 2) Annually

confirm that the pr essure at the nozzl e and nozzle flow rate (s) a re properly calibrated.


### 6 . 5 GRO UND ADUL TI CI DI NG 6.5.1 Barrier

Treatm ents B arrie r t re a tme nts wo rk

thr ou g h th e app lic a tio n o f i ns e c tic ide s to fo lia g e wh e rea du lt mosquitoes may

rest. The insecticide ne eds to be a pplied at a c oncentr ation wher e a mosquito l anding upon the treated veg etation will pick up enoug h of the a ctive ing redie nt throug h contac t to cause morta lity . Ty pically , these ty

pes of tre atments areused in very lim ite d a re a s to pr ote c t th e pu bli c du ri ng nig httime ou tdo or e ve nts su c h a s w e dd ing s, parties, and sporting e vents. Ba rrier treatments can provide control for day s or eve n wee ks depending on the insecticide formulation. Th e ins e c tic idec a n b e app lie d to thefo lia g e by on e of thr e e me tho ds : 1. Dre nchin g Sprays Dre nching spray s are applied as a very dilute aqueous formulation, typically using a vehic le mounted larvic ide type sy stem (tank, pump, hose, and spray -g un) c apa bleof pr od uc ing ve ry

c oa rs e “ raindro p” dr op le ts o f 5 00 to 1 00 0+ mic ro ns in diame te r. F oli a g e is t

re a te d w itha

sp ray -w a ndor

sp ray -g un a t th e e ndof

theho se to the point of runoff ( “dripping ”). Ty pically , it would take 50 g allons or more of formulation to treat an ac re. 2. Mist Sprays Mist spray s are typically

applied as an aqueous insec ticide formulation (s ome tim e s o il- ba se d) a s a mis t ty pe sp ray wi th dro ple ts o f 1 00 to1 50 mic ro ns in diameter using an air blast ty

pe spray er e ither a ba ckpac k or vehic le/trailer mou nte d e qu ipm e nt s uc h a s a “ B uf falo M ist Tu rb ine .” I ns e c tic ide s a

rele ss he a vil y dil ute d f or mis t sp ray s th a n f

or dr e nc hin g sp ray s. Th e sma lle r dro ple ts i n the hig h ener g y

air blast (100+ miles per hour) rea dily impinge upon the ve g e tatio n andthesu rf

a c e s th a t th e y

c on ta c t. 3. Electr ostatic Sprays Electrostatic spray s are applied as e lectric ally char g ed insec ticides that more eff ectively “sticks” to the ba

rrier to which it is applied. Although not wide ly used for mosquito control in Florida , this method has promise due to the low volumesC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 106

neede d for e ffe ctive cove rag e and the minimal waste/contamination to the g round. Th e a mou nt o f b arrie r t

re a tme nt s pr a y s u se d inF lorida mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i s ins ig nif ic a nt w he n c omp are d to thea mou nt o f g ro un d a du lti c idi ng , b ut b arrie r t re a tme nts areg aining in popularity

and ar e a sig nificant portion of the mosquito control services of fe re d b y c omm e rc ia l pe st c on tr ol c omp a nie s to pr op e rty ow ne rs . 6.5.2 Space spray Space spr ay

g round adulticiding is the most commonlyused method of c ontrolling mos qu ito e s inF lorida

tod a y a ndof te n is pe rc e ive d b y

theg e ne ral pu bli c a s th e on ly method in use. I n 2005, mosquito control ag encie s reported adulticiding 23,140,819 acr es by g round. This amount is 75 perc ent of the a dulticiding ac rea g e re ported; ae rial applications ac counted f

or 7,795,602 ac res. Ground a dulticiding consists of dispersing an insec ticide as a spacespray

of fine a erosol droplets (“ spray

cloud”) into the air column, which the n moves throug h the habitat whe re a du lt m os qu ito e s a

refl y ing . In o rd e r t o b e e ff e c tiv e thedr op s mu st c on ta c t a n a c tiv e ly fly ing a dult mosqui to. Once the spray has deposited on the g round or ha s been int e rc e pte d b y

fo lia g e , it

is n o lo ng e r e ff

e c tiv e be c aus e thec on c e ntr a tio n is fa r t oo sma ll to act as c ontact or r esidual treatment. Very small droplets are nece ssary so that they : 1) remain airborne for a

signific ant period of time in order to incr easethe proba bilityof encounte ring a flying mosquito, 2) ar e lar g e enoug h to have a high pr obability

of impinging when e ncountering a mosquito, and 3) arenot so larg e that they deposit out close to the ve hicle in conc entrations that may be harmful to non-targ et org anisms. Under standably , very

small (aer osol) droplets re ly on prevailing meteor ologic al conditions to move to and throug h the targ et zone. As such, meteor ology is one of the primary fac tors g overning the ef

fec tiveness of a

spray operation. Applications conducted in low wind and very

stable inversion c onditions m ay keep the spray

cloud in the targ et zon e fo r a sig nif ic a nt p e ri odof

tim e , b ut s uc h a

pp lic a tio ns may

fail t o p e ne tr a te de ns e ly veg etated ha

bitats or move the spray

cloud throug h are as with wider than normal stree t separ ations. Applications conducte d in highe r wind “ne utral” atmospheric conditions may be more eff

ective at forcing the spray into densely

veg etated ha

bitats but also may move the spray

cloud too quickly

throug h open ar eas and may not targ et the mosquitoes in these ar eas sincetheir flig ht activity behavior may be inhibited by

the hig h winds. The operator/manag er ne eds to understand these mete orolog ical issues and the particula r mosquito species/habitat that they aretarg eting
. Historically , two techniques of mosquito control insecticidal spacespraying have bee n utiliz ed: therma l aer osol and ULV cold ae rosol. Truck mounted the rmal ae rosol equipment has be en phase d out, and only a fe w prog rams now use handheld thermal a e ro so l “ fo g g e rs ” fo r t

re a tin g ve ry

sma ll a re a s. Th e rm a l f

og g ing is c ov e re d inthi s se c tio n f or his toric a l pu rp os e s.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 107

6.5.2.1 Therm al F og Therma l fog g ers we re de veloped lar g ely from smoke g ener ators built principally for conce aling milit ary

maneuve rs. The f

irst units were built by

a Na vy contra ctor, Todd Shipy ards Corpor ation. The insec ticide is mix ed into a fog -oil, usually with #2 Diesel or a lig ht petroleum distillate, which is injected into a he ated, of ten double wa lled nozz le. The mix ture is vaporized by the heat, which may

be in excess of 1000 F. A sour ce of o fo rc e d air drive s th is v apo r o ut o f the no zzle wh e retheou tsi dec oo le r air c on de ns e s it int o a vis ibl e fo g wi th dro ple ts r a ng ing fr om 0 .5 - 1 .5 mic ro ns . I f the insec ticide flow doe s not overwhe lm the vaporization capa city (suffic ient BTU s/ga llon/hour) of the mac hinery , all of the drople ts will be in thi s near sub-micron rang e and of

ten ar e re fer

red to a s a dry

fog . I f the insec ticide flow is incre ased or the he a t r e du c e d, so me of

themate ri a l w ill no t bec omp le te ly va po ri zed , andlarg e r dro ple ts will be produce d. The insec ticide' s contac t time with the high temper ature is so short that littl e if any

deg radation takes place
. 6 . 5 . 2 . 2 Ul tr a L o w Vo l u me Cold aerosol g ener ators or c old fog g ers we re de veloped to eliminate the ne ed for the g re a t qu a nti tie s o f p e tr ole um o il d ilu e nts ne c e ssa ry fo r the rm a l f

og g ing . T he se un its o ri gi n al l y we re co n s tru ct ed b y

m o u n t i n g a m o d i fi ed v o rt i ca l n o z z l e o n a t h er m al fo gger 's forc ed air blower. Most of the nozzles owe a g reat deal of homa g e to a de sign patented by theU. S. A rm y . T he ins e c tic ideis a pp lie d a s a

te c hn ic a l mate ri a l or

a t mo de rate ly hig h c on c e ntr a tio ns , a s is c omm on wi th the py re thr oid s, wh ic h tr a ns late s to ve ry sma ll quantities per a cre(ty

pically less than one f

luid ounce) and, hence , is theref ore r efe rre d to as ULV. The optimum siz e drople t for g round application with cold aerosols has be en determined to be in the rang e of f ive to twenty -five micr ons (Haile et al . 1982). Much of the work de veloping and improving our under standing of this method was conduc ted from the mid 1960s throug h the ea rly 1980s by rese arc hers at the United States De pa rtme nt o f A g ri c ultur e , A g ri c ultur a l Re se arc h St a tio n la bo ratory in G a ine sv ill e , mo st no ta bly un de r the le a de rs hip of

Dr . G ary Mo un t ( Mo un t et al . 1998). Th e sp ray e rs in u se tod a y uti lize se ve ral te c hn iqu e s to me e t th e se re qu ir e me nts . A ir bla st spray ers a re a lmost uni versa l. They use either

high volume/low pr essure vortical nozzl es or hig h pressureair shea

r nozz les to brea

k the liquid into very

small droplets. Rotary atomizers, ultrasonic nozz les, and e lectrostatic nozzles are othe r ra rely used forms of a tom izatio n e qu ipm e nt. Ce ntrif ug a l e ne rg y

no zzle s –

ro tary a tom ize rs – f

orm dr op le ts when the liquid is thrown from the surfac e of a high spe ed spinning porous sleeveor dis c . U ltr a so nic e qu ipm e nt v ibr a te s a ndthr ow s th e dr op le ts o ff. E le c tr os tatic sy ste ms re pe l th e dr op le ts.
6. 5. 2. 3 Ri sks and B e ne fit s o f The r m al F og gin g a nd U LV A b e ne fi t of

the rm a l f og g ing is i ts a

bil ity to atom ize mor e ins e c tic idewi th muc h le ss ener g y (B TUs) input than air bla st ULV delivery techniques. The rmal fog g ing pr oduces a un if orm dr op le t sp e c trum o f v e ry sma ll dro ple ts i f a

dry fo g is m a int a ine d. Th e sma llC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 108

droplets do not settle quickly and may penetr ate f

oliag e better

than the lar g er c old aer osol droplets. Also, the cloud is very visible, allowing the applicator to observe its movement throug h the ar ea, w hich is particularly useful whe n wind indications are non-existent. Dense enveloping fog cre ates a traff ic hazard. A dditional concerns include the amount of no n- ins e c tic idal pe tr ole um d ist ill a te s, wh ic h f un c tio n o nly

a s a c arrie r, a ndthe ir

po ssi ble damag ing side eff

ects on the e nvironment. Thermal fog s are considera bly more expensive when the c ost of the petrole um oil is considere d. Therma l aer osols often are uti lize d inthi rdwo rl d c ou ntrie s b e c aus e thepo pu latio n c a n e a sil y se e that so me thi ng is being done. ULV cold ae rosols do not require larg e amounts of diluents for application, making them chea per and placing a lower

petroleum produc t load on the environme nt. The spray plu me is n e arl y

inv isi blea nddo e s n ot c re a te a tr a ff ic pr ob le m du e to r e du c e d v isi bil ity a ndmay no t bepe rc e ive d a s a n u nd e sir ablefu nc tio n. Th e ma c hin e ry to g e ne ra te c old aer osols can be muc h simpler in desig n and oper ation than therma l fog g ers but re quires sophisticated nozz les and, with pneumatic equipment, a g reat deal of e nerg y input (horse power ) to atomize even a small flow of insecticide . A typical ene rg y require ment would be 0.5 horse power per ounc e per

minute of formulation to be atomiz ed. Risks associated with ULV cold ae rosols include the proble ms related to a pply ing any technical pesticide undiluted. The mate rial is being handled and transporte d in a c on c e ntr a te d f

orm. T he dr op le t sp e c trum i s r a the r w ide(1 μm - 40 μm) , c a n b e dif fi c ult to c hang e , andmay

se ttl e int o n on -t arg e t are a s mo rere a dil y than a dry the rm a l a e ro so l. Any discussion of risk versus be nefits nee ds to note that this “space spray ” form of control has be en in extensive use for mor e than f orty y ear s. Therehave not be en any g laring adver se impacts attributed to g round adulticiding when done properly
. Pop ulatio n g ro wth a lon g thec oa sta l are a s o f F lorida a ndthestate ' s a

pp e a l a s a tou ri st de sti natio n atte st t o th e be ne fi ts o f this te c hn iqu e a ndmos qu ito c on tr ol i n g e ne ral. Al tho ug h g ro un d a du lti c idi ng is the mos t w ide ly us e d mo sq uit o c on tr ol t e c hn iqu e in terms of a cre ag e tre ated, the limitations of this method bear noting . Vehicle mounted equipment can only

be ef fec tively utiliz ed whe re the re is a g ood street ne twork. As roa ds become more wide ly

space d in suburban and r ural a rea s, the cove rag e af

forde d by the w i n d

- d r i v e n s p r a y c l o u db e c o m e s d i l u t e dt o t h e p o i n to f b e i n g i n e f

f e c t i v e . S i m i l ar l y, on ly tho se pr op e rtie s o n th e do wn wi ndsid e of thestr e e t aretr e a te d b y

thesp ray . D e ns e veg etation and hig h building densities also may reduc e the e ffe ctive movement of the spray . 6. 5. 3 Equipm e nt Ground a dulticiding equipment is normally mounted on some type of ve hicle, but smaller units are a vailable that c an be c arried by hand or on a

person' s back. Pickup truc ks are themos t c omm on mot orize d v e hic le fo r c on ve y a nc e . A ll- te rr a in v e hic le s a ndg olf c art s areoc c a sio na lly

uti lize d f or g ro un d a du lti c idi ng wi th v ari ou s e qu ipm e nt c on fi g ur a tio ns .C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 109

Of the 50 or g anized mosquito control ag encie s in Florida r eporting to FDACS in 2006, all but one ag ency

listed gr ound adulticiding ma chines in their inventory of equipment. A t otal of 35 2 v e hic le mou nte d U LV a du lti c idi ng ma c hin e s w e rere po rt e d w ithpr og rams listi ng as fe w as one to as many as 27. Cold aerosol g ener ators (U LV) a re a vailable in a br oad rang e of sizes and c onfig urations. The lar g est units offer ed by most manufactur ers a

re of ten terme d “heavy -duty ” units and areso ld a s b e ing themos t app lic ablefo r c ommun ity /c ou nty size d o pe ratio ns . T his “heavy duty ” labe l is more tied to larg er f low capa biliti es than to the dura

bilityof the e qu ipm e nt. L arg e are a

op e ratio ns on c e uti lize d th e larg e st e qu ipm e nt availa blebe c aus e their choic e of insec ticide often inc luded malathion (ove r 45% usa g e in 1995), whic h re qu ir e d th e hig he st f

low rate s ( up to 8 .6 ou nc e s p e r m inu te a t 20 mil e s p e r h ou r) a ndis considere d to be the most difficult mosquito adulticide to atomiz e to label spe cifications. Howeve r by

2005, malathion comprised less than 20% of the total usag e (in a cre s sp ray e d) fo r g ro un d a du lti c idi ng . T he ma jority (> 75 %) of

g ro un d a du lti c idi ng no w i s be ing c on du c te d w ithva

ri ou s f ormul a tio ns of

pe rm e thrin that aresig nif ic a ntl y e a sie r t o a tom ize to c or

re c t dr op le t si zes . Mo st m a nu fa c tur e rs of

fe r a “ he a vy -d uty ” ma c hin e , ty pic a lly uti lizin g a

larg e tw in cy linder g asoline eng ine (16-18 hor se powe r) driving a rotary lobed blower . The nozzl es on these mac hines may

differ , but they

all rese mble the old vortical nozzl e pate nted by the U.S. Army . The B eec omist P ro-Mist 25 HD diffe rs; it is an electric driven rota ry atomizer type mac hine that oper ates off of the ve hicle' s elec trical sy stem. Only a fe w of these mac hines areused in Florida
. Th e ins e c tic ideme te ri ng e qu ipm e nt availa bleon the se ma c hin e s r a ng e s f ro m a simple g la ss f low me te r anda

pr e ssu ri zedta nk

(o nly fo un d o n v e ry

oldma c hin e s) to an e le c tric p u m p o n fi x ed fl o w m ac h i n es t o co m p u t er -c o n tro l l ed , s p ee dco rr el at ed , ev en tre co rd i n g, and prog rammable flow mana g ement sy stems. The fixed flow units are de signe d to be op e rate d w iththeve hic le tr a ve lin g a t a c on stant s pe e d. Mo st o f the se uti lize 12 -v olt laboratory

type pumps that arequite acc urate
. Variable flow me tering sy stems reg ulate insec ticide flow re lative to the distance the vehicle tr avels and arethere fore forg iving of speed irr eg ularities. Approximately 50% of all truck-mounted c old aer osol ge nerators used in Florida areequipped with spee d c on tr ol v ari ablefl ow me te ri ng sy ste ms. Ve hic le mon ito ri ng sy ste ms r e c or d v e hic le speed and insecticide pump ope rations over time. This information may be incor porate d with the flow control sy stems to provide complete spr ay operations manag ement sy ste ms. Historically , many

prog rams construc ted their own U LV adulticiding machines from offthe-shelf components. Some of these machines w erebuilt from new piec es, but other machines w erefabricated f rom scave ng ed equipment that be g an life e lsewher e. The y may have be en loca lly

made f or ec onomic rea sons or to customiz e a c ertain function for a particular ope rational ne ed. Many , if not most, of these “home- built” machines a reC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 110

being repla ced by

commerc ially

manufa cture d units incorporating the many i m p r o v e m e n t s a n dn e w t e c h n o l o g i e s a v a i l ab l e t o d a y. Severa l manufac turers now producea mid-rang e mac hine in the eig ht to twelve horsepowe r (or

equivalent) class, as w ell as a f ew e ven smaller ( <six horsepowe r) ma c hin e s. Th e se un its aremor e c omp a c t, l ig hte r, a ndty pic a lly us e le ss f ue l th a n th e ir larg e r r e lativ e s. Th e a tom izatio n c apa bil iti e s o f the ma c hin e s inthi s c la ss a reno rm a lly su ff ic ie nt f or ma ny of thepe sti c ide s n ow be ing us e d ( lig hte r, low e r f low -r a te py

re thr oid fo rmulatio ns ), pa

rtic ula rl y a t th e te n mi le s p e r h ou r r a te s. Al l of thefl ow sy ste ms a vaila blefo r the larg e r u nit s may be fi tte d to thi s c la ss m a c hin e a s w e ll. Severa l handheld, 2-c y cle e ng ine driven, U LV spray ers a re a vailable f

or spot treatments. Severa l units are conf

igur ed as ba ckpac k spray ers with the e ng ine/blower mounted on a pa c k f rame c on ne c te d to a

re mot e no zzle wi th a

ho se . T he se un its uti lize a n o ri fi c e to control flow and either an aspirating or a g ravity fee d to supplythe insecticide . Wit h the hig h c os t of

the se re lativ e ly

sma ll, simplema c hin e s, se ve ral pr og rams h a ve no w t ake n to ma nu fa c turing the ir

ow n h a nd he ld e qu ipm e nt.
6.5.4 Trainin g and Main tenance Oper ators of a dulticiding equipment must be trained not only in the proper

use and maintenanc e of the pesticide e quipment but also in the proper a pplication of the insecticide that they

areusing. Pesticide la

bels specif

y application details including acc eptable dr oplet spectrum, f low rate s, application rates, are as to avoid, and ta rg et insects. The la w re quires that any operator be c ertified in the Public He alth cate g ory throug h FDA CS or be supervised by a license d person. A c ertified a pplicator may supervise up to ten ope rators. Some prog rams haveall their per sonnel ce rtified including officestaff. The F lorida Mosquito Control Association (FMCA) Dodd Short Courses r eg ularly offe r prog rams desig ned to educ ate ope rators, me chanic s, and supervisors in the proper techniques of

calibration, maintenance , operation, and scheduling of spray activities. FDA CS encourag es ag encie s to budge t course f ees and trave l monies to attend the course s every

y ear . I n addition, Florida A g ricultural and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mu lr e nn a n, Sr . Pu bli c He a lthEn tom olo g y Re se arc h andEd uc a tio n Ce nte r ( PHE REC ) annually offe rs the Southeast Confer encein Panama City , Florida , wher e hands- on classes c an be attended.


### 6 . 6 AER I AL AP P LI CAT I ONS I n 2005, there wer e twenty operational mosquit o control prog rams in Florida that conducte d aerial adulticiding. F ifteen pr og rams own their own airc raf

t, and five prog rams contr act with one of sever al private aerial applicator s. They have c hosen ae rial app lic a tio n a s a

ve ry e ff e c tiv e me a ns of

c on tr oll ing a du lt m os qu ito e s p artic ula rl y in inacc essible ar eas. Some of the ag encie s base a lmost all of their operations on thi s formC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 111

of application. Normally , adulticiding w ould not be the primary operational response. Where a eria l adulticiding is the primary response , it is because:

• pe rm its to c on str

uc t ne w s ou rc e re du c tio n p ro je c ts a ree sse nti a lly

un ob ta ina

ble
• larviciding is most effec tive when a high pe rce ntag e of the mosquito production sites are reg ularly

treated which may

be diffic ult and expensive
• a e ri a l app lic atio ns may be theon ly

re lia bleme a ns of

g e tti ng e ff

e c tiv e c on tr ol i f the ar eas la ck a ne twork of r oads Aerial adulticiding may

be the only

means of c overing a very larg e ar ea quic kly

during sever e nuisanc e mosquito outbreaks (pa rticularly afte r natural disasters such a s hurricanes) or

vector - borne disease e pidemics. One of the advantag es of a eria l app lic a tio n o f o rg a no ph os ph a te s ( na le d andma lathi on ) i s th a t th e pe sti c idela be ls p e rm it as much a s five times the amount of toxicant to be applied by air a s by g round. An example is the Dibrom (naled) label with a g round maxim um rate of 0.198 ounce pe r ac re bu t a n a e ri a l maximum

of on e ou nc e pe r a c re(o ve r 5 tim e s th e g ro un d r a te ). Th is opportunity

for a eria l operations biases it heavily toward be tter leve ls of control. Howeve r, this advantag e does not a pply to the sy nthetic py

rethroids (pe rmethrin, resmethrin, and D-phe nothrin), as the pe r ac re r ates for these produc ts are the same for bo th g ro un d anda e ri a l app lic a tio ns . Aerial applications ar e expensive due to the pe sticide costs per a cre , the hig h cost of owning and maintaining (or lea sing) airc raf t, and the inher ent incre ased sa lary for pr of e ssi on a l pi lot s. L ow le ve l f lying , mo st o ft e n c on du c te d d uring thenig ht h ou rs to coincide w ith peak mosquito activity , is a dang erous a ctivity requiring a hig h deg reeof skill a ndpr of

e ssi on a lis m, p artic ula

rl y c on sid e ri ng thema ny

ob str uc tio ns su c h a s to we rs , high rise buildings, and c onstruction cranes. F ly ing also is very depende nt on good weather c onditions. Due to the commitments for any spray mission, decisions are g iven much thoug ht and ar e commonly schedule d when a dult mosqui to population levels are at their pea k. T h re e a er i al ad u l t i ci d i n g t ec h n i q u es h av e b ee n u s ed i n Fl o ri d a: l o w v o l u m e s p ra y i n g, thermal fog g ing, and ULV ae rosols. L ow volume (a

bout a quart per a cre ) spray s werecommonly applied with the pesticide diluted in light petroleum oils and applied a s a rather we t spray with a larg e drople t siz e. Their e ffe ctiveness a s a loca liz ed re sidual treatment wa s neg ated by problems of spotting car s or anything e lse left outside. The size of the dr oplets reduc ed drift, thus limiti ng swath widths, and wa s not ideal for imping ing on mosquitoes. This technique has not been use d for some time but is compatible with the equipment c ommonlyused for aerial liquid larviciding. This tec hnique would be the a eria l equivalent of g round applied ba rrie r t re a tme nts
. Therma l aer osol applications used the e x haust heat of the airc raf t's e ng ines (including the helicopter ' s turbine) to atomize a very dilute mix ture of pe troleum oil and insecticide. Th e se app lic a tio ns we repo pu lar w ithpil ots wh o e a sil y c ou ld s e e wh e rethesp ray plu meC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 112

was drif ting. It also was an e fficie nt means of pr oducing a very small droplet and tig ht sp e c trum. Th e sma ll dro ple ts w ou ld r e ma in air bo rn e muc h lo ng e r than la rg e r dro ple ts and at ve ry

high de nsities, thus i ncre asing the proba bilityof impact with a f

ly ing mosquito. However, the larg e quantities of f og oil required la

rg er he avy

lift aircr aft and even the n limit ed the a

rea that could be c overe d economically to about one-te nth that of theare a c ov e re d b y

ULV a pp lic a tio ns . T he ins e c tic idemix ne e de d to be c omp le te ly atomized, or larg er oil droplets c ould potentially put sheen on water be neath the f light path. The amount of petroleum oil dispensed as a car rier may have c reated environmenta lly

undesirableeff

ects. Ae rial therma l aer osol applications rar ely areused today
. The primary

aerial adulticiding te chnique in use today applies the insec ticide in a technical conce ntrate or

in a very high c oncentr ation formulation as an ULV cold ae rosol (Mount 1996). Lighte r airc raf t, including he licopters, can be utiliz ed bec ause the insecticide loa d is a fra ction of the we ight of other tec hniques. As with g round adulticiding w ith a cold ae rosol g ener ator, the intent of this method of a eria l adulticiding is to produce a

spray cloud of ve ry

fine drople ts (aer osol) that moves throug h the targ et zone and kills any

mosquitoes upon which the droplets impinge . Aerial adulticiding ap p l i e s t h e s p r a y w e l l a

b o v e t h e t ar g e tz o n e , u n l i k e g r o u n da d u l t i c i d i n g w h i c h s p r a ys within the targ et zone. Aerial adulticiding r elies on a numbe r of diff ere nt phases of pa rtic le (= dr op le t) mov e me nt t o b ri ng thesp ray c lou d d ow n in to the targ e t zon e (w ith in 50 fee t of the g round). The se phase s are : 1
. Aircr aft Vortice s Fairly soon after

being emitted at the nozzl e, spray drops ar e ca

ug ht up or
“ e ntr a ine d” wi thi n th e wi ng tip or ro tor wa shvo rtic e s. Th is e ne rg e tic turbulenceproduce d by

the airc raf

t sinks toward the g round taking the spray cloud with it before dissipating. The desce nt distances and lifeof thevo rtic e s b e fo rede c a y

va ry be tw e e n air c ra ft

a nda tmo sp he ri c conditions (stable, neutral or unstable) but ty pically drop 30-50 f

eet f rom thea ir c ra ft

a ndla st s e ve ral mi nu te s. I n s omea ir c ra ft un de r v e ry

sta ble atmospheric c onditions, vortex desce nt distances can exceed 100 f eet and la st m or e than f

ivemin ute s. 2
. Atm osph ericDispersion Once rele ased f

rom the dissipated vortice s, the spray cloud is now subject t o gen er al at m o s p h er i c t u rb u l en ce , wh i ch d i l u t es t h e s p ra y cl o u dt h ro u gh vertica l spread a s well as horizontal (wind) moveme nt. The deg reeof atmospheric tur

bulence (vertical sprea d) is related to the stabilityof the atmosphere . I n a hig hly

stable atmospher e under

inversion conditions typical of low w ind nights, the ve rtical spre ad is minimal resulting in the sp ray c lou d h a ng ing tog e the r a s a fair ly c on c e ntr a te d p lum e . In n e utr a l to slightly unstable conditions typical of w indy overc ast nig hts without inversion conditions, the vertical spread is sig nificant, bring ing the spray cloud down towar ds the g round much fa ster and also dilut ing the spray cloud conc entration.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 113 3
. Droplet Sedim entation Spray droplets also ar e subjec t to the force s of g ravity , sinking towa rds the g round with a sedimentation velocity related to their size and density . For example, a 10 μm diameter drop w ould take 2.8 hours to fa ll 100 feet, a 20 μm drop would take 42 minutes, and a 50 μm drop would takeonly 6.7 minutes. Under stable nighttime conditions with litt le vertical movement in the atmosphere (ty

pical nig ht spray

conditions in Florida), the se dim e ntatio n v e loc ity

may play a sig nif ic a nt r olein the dr op le ts movement towar ds the targ et zone (nea r the g round). Th e fl ig ht p arame te rs fo r a e ri a l a du lti c idi ng dif fe r b y pr og ram a ndby

te c hn iqu e . So me mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams f ly du ri ng theho ur s o f d a y lig ht s o th e ir app lic a tio ns be g in either at morning' s first light or be fore sunset and wor k into twili g ht. At these times, the pilots shoul d be able to see towe rs and other obstructions, as well as ke ep tra ck of the spray plume. This timi ng makes it safe r for the airc raf

t to be flown at less than 200 f eet altitude which may

make it ea sier to hit the targ et ar ea. A lthough potentially safe r and more c omfortable f

or the pilot, this period may not coincide with the times of pe ak m o s q u i t o a c t i v i t y, t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

t h e s p r a y. Other ope rations fly

in the dark of

the nig ht, typically

afte r twilight or e arly

in the morning befor e daw n. The aircra ft typically areflown betwe en 200 and 300 f eet a ltitude, which is not ideal for

acc urate targ eting of small spray blocks but is more appropriate for the treatment of larg er ( 10,000+ ac re) are as. A fe w prog rams utiliz e nig ht vision g og g le s, a llo wi ng fo r s a fe r l ow a lti tud e (1 00 -2 00 fe e t) app lic a tio ns du ri ng nig httime hours. Most mosquit o flig ht activity is crepusc ular, so these flig hts catch the adults at their pea k activity . Be es ar e not ac tive prior to full daylight so should not be at risk of serious impact fr om the insecticide a pplication. Application altitude not only has an impac t on the acc urate targ eting of small spray blocks but also aff

ects the insec ticide deposition levels more than might be e x pecte d. L ower application altitudes re sult in hi g her de position l evels with the potential fornontarg et impacts. This phenomenon ha s been r ecog nized by the EPA which now r equire s minimum application altitude stateme nts on all new labe ls – 75 feet f or helicopte rs and 10 0 f e e t f or fi xedwi ng a ir c ra ft
. Swath widths also vary

from oper ation to operation but are norma lly set somewher e be tw e e n 5 00 -1 50 0 f

e e t. S waths arefl ow n a s c los e to p e rp e nd ic ula r w iththewi nda s is possible, working into the wind and commonly forming a long , tight S pattern. Many fac tors aff

ect the spr ay

drift offse t, the horizontal dist ancetrave led betwe en spray being rele ased at the airc raf

t and re aching the targ et zone closer to the g round. Pilots rely to a deg reeon experience for de termining this offset, althoug h there arenow Global Posit ioning Sy stem (GPS) g uidance sy stems with builtin computer spray modeling which provide rea sonable e stimates for ac curate place ment of spray clouds. Spray

drift of fs e t di stanc e s c a n v ary

fr om l e ss than 1 00 0 f

e e t ( low le ve l app lic a tio ns in l ig ht w ind s) to gr eate r than 7000 fe et (hig h altitude and/or moder ate winds).C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 114

Th e re lativ e imp orta nc e of thethr e e ph a se s o f dro ple t mo ve me nt – Ai rc ra ft Vo rtic e s, Atmospheric Dispe rsion, and Dr oplet Sedimentation – depends upon the ty pe of operational application. L ow level ( <100 foot a ltitude) treatments c onducted during the da wnho ur s to targ e t na

rr ow mos qu ito ha

rb or a g e ha

bit a ts ( su c h a s mang ro ve fo re st shorelines) r ely

almost ex clusively

on the airc raf

t vortices to move the spray into the targ e t are a . Wh ile thi s me tho d h a s th e abil ity to t arg e t a

sma ll a re a , it a lso ru ns theri sk of cr eating a potentially

damag ing de posit peak close to the f light line. Hig h altitude (300 foot altitude) nig httime applications rely on a combination of a ll three pha ses but m o r e s i g n i f

i c a n t l y o n a t m o s p h e r i c d i s p e r s i o n a n ds e d i m e n t a t i o n . H i g h a l t i t u d e s p r a ys have a highe r proba

bilityof spray

drift outside the intended ta rg et zone, but the spray de po sit c on c e ntr a tio n is lik e ly

to b e be low a

le ve l th a t c ou ld b e c on sid e re d b iol og ic a lly signific ant. It may be for this particular r eason that droplet sizes that are e ffe ctive for g round adulticiding ( Dv 0.5 of 12-20 micr ons with droplet siz es of 5- 25 microns) do not appe ar to be most effe ctive for

aerial adulticiding ( acc ording to anec dotal reports from sever al prog rams utiliz ing sma ll droplet high pr essure spray sy stems in aircra ft). Althoug h not c on c lus ive ly

pr ov e n at th is t ime (the rearese ve ral r e se arc h p ro je c ts b e ing c on du c te d to answe r the que stion), it may be that the most eff

ective dr oplet siz es for

aerial adulticiding arein the rang e of 15- 50 microns with spray cloud Dv 0.5 of 25- 40 microns depe nding on operational parameters, tar g et spec ies, and tar g et habitat. Ne w label lang uag e sets the upper limit for droplet size, described by the terms Dv 0.5 and Dv 0.9. On the f ew ne w labels that havebeen a

pproved the values for

aerial adulticiding: Dv 0.5 < 60 microns and Dv 0.9 < 80-100 microns.
6. 6. 1 Equipm e nt Th e on ly a e ri a l th e rm a l f

og g ing e qu ipm e nt s til l ine xiste nc e in F lorida is o n o ne DC

3/C -4 7 f ixedwi ng a ir c ra ft

a ndon tw o U H- 1B he lic op te rs op e rate d b y theL e e Cou nty Mosquito C ontrol District, and these sy stems are rar ely , if eve r, used. Thespray appar atus consists of a series of lar g e nozzl es ar rang ed in a r adial pattern direc ting the ins e c tic ide/oi l mi x into thee ng ine ' s h ot e xhaus t. T he ta nk s a requ ite larg e , 8 00 g a llo ns in theC- 47 a nd30 0 g a llo ns in the Hu e y he lic op te rs . ULV sy stems are as diverseas the aircra ft on which they aremounted. Many

fix ed wing twin eng ine airc raf

t and helicopter s are equipped with external be lly tanks suspended un de r the fu se la g e , c abin , o r i n p od s u nd e r the wi ng s ( B N I sland e r) . O the r p ro g rams install their insecticide tanks within the air cra ft' s passeng er c ompartment. Some of the ta nk s a rec omm e rc ia l f

ibe rg la ss u nit s, bu t mo st t a nk s a rec us tom fa bric a tio ns of

stainl e ss steel, poly

propy lene, or

fiberg lass. One ope ration utiliz es the aircra ft' s own auxil iary fuel tanks which we re se parated from the f uel sy stem and now c arry an oil/pyrethroid mix. Some units are equippe d with in-flight ( or re turn flig ht) tank flushing capa bility . Tank capa city rang es fr om 350 gallons for a C-47 to 20+ g allons for a Hug hes 269A heliocopter
. Much of the f

ollowing information describing “ty pical” a eria l application equipmentC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 115

c ome s f ro m ob se rv a tio ns of

thediv e rs e sy ste ms at th e F MCAAe ri a l Sh ort- Cou rs e pr og rams h e ld ann ua lly

in F lorida

ov e r the pa st 1 5- 20 y e ars . A w ideva

ri e ty of a ir c ra ft areuti lize d b y

mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i nc lud ing bo th he lic op te rs a ndfi xedwi ng a ir c ra ft . M os t a ir c ra ft areow ne d b y

theloc a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol a g e nc ie s, wh ile so me a ir c ra ft arec on tr a c te d. On e pr og ram c on tr a c ts f or pil ots but owns the airc raf

t. Although many

mosquito control ag encie s develope d aerial application prog rams by

acquiring ine x pensive g overnme nt/mil itary surplus aircr aft, the ma jority of thea g e nc ie s n ow arepu rc ha sin g a ndus ing ne we r ( or br a ndne w) c ivi l airc raf t.
6 . 6 . 1 . 1 F ix e d W in g A ir c r a ft F ixedwi ng , mu lti -e ng inea ir c ra ft a c c ou nt f or mos t of thea c re a g e a e ri a lly

a du lti c ide d in Florida . They

have a rea sonable pay load and a re mode rate ly

fast, ec onomical to operate, and pra ctical to maintain. Airc raf t use and sele ction is chang ing in F lorida. Older milit ary car g o planes (C-45 and C-47) which c arried the heavy pay loads requir ed for

the dilute formulations used in thermal a erosol applications are be ing r eplac ed by smaller, newe r, and moreprac tical airc raf t capa ble of tre ating the same or g reater a cre ag e using adulticide conc entrates applied a s ULV ae rosols. Ten y ear s ag o, four pr og rams used DC-3/C-47, and, by

2006, only

one prog ram did so. Light g ener al aviation twins (including Cessna 336, Piper Aztec, and Britten Norman I slander) may

be smaller but still have pay loads suitable for U LV spraying. T hey can be economical to purchase and oper ate, simple to maintain, nimble to fly , and somewhat less conspicuous whe n spraying. T he fue l consumption of a smaller lig ht twin eng ine plane may

only be 30 g allons per hour , but the useful payload is limi ted to about 1000 po un ds
. 6. 6. 1. 2 He lic opt e r s He lic op te rs arese e ing wi de r u se fo r a du lti c idi ng a c tiv iti e s. Ma ny pr og rams that op e rate he lic op te rs fo r l arv ic idi ng c hang e thesp ray e qu ipm e nt andus e thehe lic op te rs to a du lti c ide . A dd iti on a lly , p ro g rams u til ize he lic op te rs fo r a du lti c idi ng smalle r a re a s w ith difficult obstructions or meandering shapes and also operate fixed wing aircra ft for la rg er spray blocks. Helicopte rs ar e ca pable of much tighte r turns, ar e more maneuve rable , and c a n b e se rv ic e d at f

ie ld s ite s th us re du c ing fe rry tim e s. Ho we ve r, the ir

op e ratin g c os ts arefar more e x pensive than f

ix ed wing airc raf

t. They may be conside red sa fer , but auto ro tatio ns du ri ng a n e ng inefailu rea t lo w l e ve l may be be y on d r e c ov e ry . N o tw in eng ine helicopter s are used in mosquito control because the incr ease d acquisition and maintenanc e costs fa

r excee d the adde d benef

its. Air speeds ar e somewhe re be tween 60 kn ots fo r p ist on e ng inesh ips a nd10 0 kno ts f or thefa ste r l ig ht tur

bin e s.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 116

6. 6. 1. 3 Inv e nt or y o f Ae r ial Adu lt ic idingAi r c r aft in F lor ida Org anized mosquito control prog rams havereported owner ship of the following airc raf t ow ne rs hip to F DA CS: 2 1 F ix e d W in g A ir c r a ft

(a n ad d i t i o n al p l an e i s u s ed s o l el y fo r l ar v i ci d i n g) 8 Do ug la s D C- 3/C -4 7 ( Tw in R a dial) 1 Be ech King A ir C-90 (Twin Tur bine) 3 Piper Aztec (Tw in Pis ton) 2 Cessna 337 (Tw in Pis ton) 2 Britten Norman I slander B N2T (Tw in Turbine) 1 Britten Norman I slander B N2 (Twin Piston) 3 Shorts Sky Van ( Twin Turbine) 1 Ay res Thr ush (Single T urbine) 20 Helicopter s (a n ad d i t i o n al 2 7 ar e u s ed s o l el y fo r l ar v i ci d i n g) 2 Be ll UH-1B (Single Turbine) 8 Hug hes/MD 500 C,D& E (Single Turbine) 7 Be ll 206 (Single Tur bine) 1 Hug hes 269 A (Sing le Piston) 2 Eurocopte r Astar

B3 ( Single Tur

bine)

6.6.2 Trainin g and Requ irem ents Pilot s operating aircra ft spraying f or mosquitoes must hold a Publ ic Health Aerial Applicator’ s certification issued by FDA CS. The Aeria l Training Commi ttee within the Ed uc a tio n Co or din a tio n Co mmi tte e of theF MCAe du c a te s p e rs on ne l in vo lve d w ith aerial operations about new deve lopments, demonstrates calibration proce dures, and bring s experts from related fields to spec ial work sessions. In the wakeof 9/11 and the potential use of a g ricultural spray airc raf t by terrorists, all spray

airc raf t must be reg istered with F DACS eac h y ear and must be we ll secure d at their home loc ation. Any sa le a lso mus t bere po rt e d to F DA CS. All aircr aft a

pply ing inse cticides a

re ope rate d under the Fe dera l Aeronautics Association (F AA) F AR Part 137 (Ag ricultural Air cra ft Oper ations). Howe ver, g overnme nt owned airc raf t may be oper ated a s public aircr aft, a cate g ory orig inally

intended to allow g overnme nt entities to use surplus non-certificated military airc raf t. Publi c air cra ft areC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 117

exempt from a number of the provisions of FA R Part 137 including the ne ed for a Part 13 7 Ce rtif ic a te a ndthene e d f

or a n A ir wo rthin e ss C e rtif

ic a te . Pr og rams u sin g pu bli c airc raf t must st ill develop a “c ong ested a rea plan” if the y

operate over

residential a

rea s of their county . It should be noted that most, if not all, aircra ft flown by mosquito control pr og rams a

rema int a ine d a c c or din g to the F AA ’s stric t maint e nanc e re qu ir e me nts a s if the y we rec ivi l a ir c ra ft

rathe r than th e mor e la x re qu ir e me nts of pu bli c a ir c ra ft . Private a e ri a l app lic ator s c a nn ot o pe rate a s p ub lic a ir c ra ft a ndmus t c on fo rm

to the fu ll provisions of FAR Part 137. The se airc raf t have a certificate of

airworthiness and ar e maintained, modified, and flown in strict conformance to the FAA ' s reg ulations g ov e rn ing c ivi l a ir c ra ft
. Part 137.51(4)( iii) states: “No per son may operate an aircra ft over a cong ested a

rea during the ac tual dispensing ope ration, including the appr oache s and depa rtures f or that operation, unless it i s operated in a pattern and at suc h an altitude that the aircra ft can la nd , ina n e me rg e nc y , w ith ou t e nd a ng e ri ng pe rs on or pr op e rty on thesu rf

a c e .” Th is statement mig ht be interpre ted to mean that any airc raf t other than a

helicopter

must be mul ti- e ng ine(i n c a se on e fails ) i f s pr a y ing ov e r c on g e ste d a re a s. 

### 6 . 7 TE CHN OL OG I CAL I MP ROV EME NTS , GU I DANCE SYSTEMS, AND DOCU MENTA TI ON Ground a dulticiding by

truck mounted e quipment alway s has had a simple form of g e og ra ph ic a l r e fe re nc e sin c e theve hic le s w e redrive n o n s tr e e t ne tw or ks . D ri ve rs c ou ld follow pape r maps with delineated spray zones for g uidance . Aircr aft, howe ver, do not follow stree ts and must rely on other forms of ref

ere nce f or flig ht line guidance. In the early day s “flag men” with fla shing be acons on ve hicles we re use d to mark the be g inning or ending of a spr ay

run. This arr ang ement re quired stre ets at the e dg es of the spr ay block, the ability

of the drive r to move to the cor rec t marking position, and a lack of po te nti a lly

c on fl ic tin g fl a sh ing be a c on s ( e.g ., emer g ency vehicles) . Some aerial prog rams simply

relied on the pilots abili ty to rea d a map, r ecog nize spray block bo un da ri e s b y vis ua l c ue s, a nde sti mate thec or re c t sp ray lin e se pa ratio n ( be it 5 00 fe e t, 1000 fee t, or some other distanc e). Ba sed on ra dio signa ls triang ulated betwe en tower s, L Ong RAng e Na vigation (L ORAN) sy stems wereused fr om the 1970s throug h the 1990s but suffered fr om signa l interfe renc e particularly

around da wn and dusk (me teorolog ical ef fec ts). Howeve r, they wer e usef ul for flying la

rg e re ctang ular blocks with ac curate swath sepa ration since many inc or po rate d a “ g ri d” pr og ram de ve lop e d f or se arc h andre sc ue fl ig hts . T he pil ot s imp ly flew a known base line (spray

block downwind edg e), e ntere d the desire d swath width, a ndtheins trume nt g a ve g uid a nc e to s uc c e e din g fl ig ht l ine s. I n the ea rly 1990s GPS became a vailable and aff ordable . Navig ation was ba sed on signa ls from g eostationary satellites and did not suffe r fr om the same interf ere nce a s L ORAN. Even ba sic units are a ccur ate to within 30 fee t, providing the fede ral g overnme nt does not re- introduce an err or, “Sele ctive Availability ”, during times of heig htened national security . Sy stems are desig ned spec ifically for a eria l applicationC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 118

(i nc lud ing a g ri c ultur e , f

or e stry , andmos qu ito c on tr ol) wi th the “ g ri d” sp ray ing pr og ram, f l i g h tr e c o r d i n g , a n dt h e ab i l i t y t o u p l o a di rr e g u l ar s h ap e ds p r a y b l o c k s , “ n o s p r a y” zones, and obstructions (tower s) onto a moving map scre en for pilot viewing and g uidance . They

areusually

equipped with a lig ht bar mounted in the pilot’s field of vie w that in dic a te s h ow fa

r o ff tr a c k th e a ir c ra ft

mig ht b e so that th e pil ot d oe s n ot h a ve to look down at a map sc ree n. Al l of the se imp ro ve me nts in t e c hn olo g y a llo we d a

pil ot t o f ly a ve ry a c c ur a te fl ig ht p a th wi thi n a de fi ne d s pr a y

blo c k, bu t mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams s til l r e lie d o n a “ be st g ue ss” as to wher e to fly

(what offset distance ) to ensurethat the spray eff ectively cover s the targ e t zon e . T he U. S. g ov e rn me nt e mba rk e d o n a pr og ram to de ve lop c omp ute r m od e ls that c ou ld p re dic t sp ray

dr op mov e me nt a ft e r l e a vin g a n air c ra ft . T he se mod e ls inc or po rate d a ll the c omp le x inte ra c tio ns be tw e e n air c ra ft ty pe , s ize , w e ig ht, no zzle position, formulation, droplet siz e, spray altitude, meteorolog ical conditions (wind, temperature, humidity , atmospheric tur bulence ), and othe r par ameter s to give a rea sonable e stimate of spray deposit and drift. The orig inal prog ram wa s known as FSCBG ( For est Service , Cramer , Ba rry , Grim) and inc orporated a “ modeling e ng ine” known as AG Disp (Ag ricultural Dispe rsal). TheSpray Drift Ta sk Forc e, a c onsortium of pesticide manuf

actur ers and reg ulatory

ag encie s, spent milli ons of dollars validating the AGDisp model and r elea sed a r eg ulatory version known a s AGDrif t. This model is used by theEPAfo r p e sti c ideapp lic a tio n risk a sse ssm e nts . T he AG Di sp a ndAG Drif t mo de ls arerelatively

simple and ca n be run on a desktop computer to view the ef fec ts of chang ing ope rational pa

rame ters (inc luding dr oplet siz e, wind spee d, spray altitude) on the eve ntual drift and de posit of the spray and allow the use r to estimate the c orre ct offse t distances to use unde r a g iven set of c onditions (L atham 2004). I n rec ent y ear s one GPS guidance sy stem manufac turer ha s taken this work a step furthe r by incorporating the A GDisp modeling alg orithms into t he onboar d computer pr ocessing unit to create, in essenc e, an “ intelligent” unit that takes real-time information and calc ulates off

set distances and corr ect f light paths for

the pilot. The pilot sim ply flies the heading s indicated by

the unit on his li g ht bar. The unit also takes into acc ount “no spray zon e ” a vo idanc e us ing thesa me pr oc e ss. Th e me te or olo g y ne c e ssa ry to r unthemod e l in rea l time is obt ained f

rom one of a

number of sour ces: a

fix ed we ather

balloon (Kitoon), a tow e r b a se d s y ste m th a t br oa dc a sts thedata to the GPS via

a sp re a d s pe c trum m od e m, or a me teorolog ical probemounted on the airc raf t that calculates the meteor ologic al conditions (wind speed, dire ction, temperature, and humidity ) at the aircra ft. Alternatively , wind information from another sourc e can be manua lly enter ed by

the pilot into the sy stem. Furthe r improvements include flow control va lves that can automatically

turn the spray

on and off

based on the airc raf

t’s position wit hin the spray block or re g ulate the f

low based on aircra ft speed or specia l remote sensing in the sy ste m. I mprovements also ha ve occ urre d in technolog y for truc k-mounted g round adulticiding equipment. Diffe rent forms of speed r eg ulated flow c ontrol are common in many sy ste ms. Au tom a te d G PS sy ste ms w ithfu lly fu nc tio na l ma

pp ing a ndg uid a nc e sy ste ms areavailable . These units can be pre prog rammed to turn the spr ay on or off at diffe rentC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 119

loc a tio ns , e na

bli ng auto matic a vo idanc e of no sp ray zon e s a nde ns uring that do ub le spraying of

streets (pa

rticularly cul-de -sac s) does not occ ur. Theseimprovements have re du c e d th e pr ob abil ity

of hu ma n e rr or

in m isa pp lic a tio ns of

pe sti c ide s, a lth ou g h it should be noted that failures and e rror s can oc cur in e ven the most sophisticated technolog ies. FDA CS reporting sy stem require s rec ords on the total ac res spray ed and total c hemical used for any application of pe sticides. Howeve r, most operations keep more de tailed rec ords of their a dulticiding missions, especially with aircr aft/vehic le GPS recor ding device s that provide ac curate information on location, tim e, and spr ay status (on or off

), usually at one se cond interva ls. Many units also recor d flow rate and mete orolog ical information. Additionally , prog rams should include re levant adult mosquito sampling information ( e.g. , landing rate s and trap c ounts, prefe rably both pre- and post-spray ) or at least a r efe renc e to wher e this information is retaine d. See Appe ndix I I Ifor Rule 5E13.06(5) f rom Chapter 5E- 13 of the F lorida Administrative Code.


### 6. 8 DRIFT AND DEPOS IT IO N MA NAGEM ENT An ef fec tive insecticide a

pplication in mosquit o control provides ma x imal targ et control a ndmin ima l no n- targ e t mo rt a lity . T wo a ve nu e s a rea vaila blefo r n on -t arg e t impa c ts i n mosquito adulti ciding : 1) drift of the inse cticide outside of the intended spray zone and 2) deposition to the g round. Def ined as the move ment of spray materia l outside of the targ et ar ea, drift is a neg ative term whe n used in pesticide a pplication technolog y . Howeve r, many mosquito control profe ssionals use the term ‘drift’ incorr ectly to describe the g ener al movement of mos qu ito c on tr ol a du lti c idesp ray s, pu tti ng a ne g a tiv e slant o n th e c or re c t us e of

the se op e ratio na l app lic a tio ns . D ri ft fr om an a g ri c ultur a l app lic a tio n is a ne g a tiv e te rm

a ndis not relevant to mosqui to control spray applications. While a mosquito control aerosol cloud is inside the intended application z one, the spray is actively

controlling mosquitoes. Mosquit o control aerosols can only be termed “drift” whe n they move into a no spray zone with potentiallyneg ative conse quence s. Ground truc k spraying a

pplies a smaller volume of pesticides than a eria l spraying, and the droplet size distributions aremuch smaller, r educing conce rns for non- targ et communities. Howeve r, if the c onditions are not consistent for the projec ted downwind dispersal, re duced c oncern may be misplace d. Both drif t and deposition eff

ects must be conside red and taken into ac count in aerial applications. Drif

t into a no spray

zone can oc cur w hen conditions arebey ond normal lim its or inc or re c t op e ratio na l pa

rame te rs areus e d. Ov e r the pa st d e c a de , th e us e of GPS to prec isely

locate ope rations in relation to no spray are as has improve d application e ff ic ie nc y . M or e ov e r, c omp ute r m od e ls ( AG Di sp ) i nte g rate d w ithre a l ti me me te or olo g ic a l data

area vaila

bleto c a lc ulatedo wn wi nddis pe rs a l of thesp ray . T he se mod e ls a rea c c e pte d b y

theEPAa ndarebe ing c on tin ua lly imp ro ve d u po n f

or mos qu ito control. The c alculation and e stimation of long rang e movement c an be pr ovided byC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 120

mod e ls, a ndthe se mod e ls a rebe ing va lid a te d b y

de dic a te d r e se arc h p ro

je c ts ( Du ke s et al
. 2003 and 2004). Deposition is the other ave nue for non-targ et impacts; minimi zation of deposition is far mor e c ri tic a l th a n o ff

-t arg e t drif

t. If o ff -t arg e t drif

t do e s o c c ur , th e sp ray

c lou d u su a lly

is so diluted the probability

of impact with a non- targ et is low. Deposition, however , can occur in peaks c lose to the flig ht line, particularly with larg e drople ts and low spray altitudes. This peak de position has the potential to be problematic f or non-tar g et org anisms. Deposition can becontrolled by droplet size. The larg er dr oplets deposit quickly rathe r than move downwind. Mosquito control obtains no bene fit from these la rg er dr oplets as deposition is waste. It is therefor e within every one’s inter est to minim ize this depositing fra ction of the spray . The EPA has r efine d its stance on this issue and cr eate d an extra require d measureof droplet size distribution on t he labe ls (PR 2005-1). Wherea s old labels only

require d that the spray

be below a

maxi mum Dv 0.5, the new labels re quire that the spr ay must now be both below a ma x imum Dv 0.5 value and a maxi mum Dv 0.9 value. The addition of the Dv 0.9 va lue now means that the upper e nd of the spray

distribution can be limited so that spray sy stems producing the larg er depositing dr ops that could impact non-tar g ets areexcluded. This is a profound step fo rw ardfo r m os qu ito c on tr ol; a dh e re nc e to this ru le wi ll l e a d to mor e e ff e c tiv e mos qu ito control and minimiz e non-ta rg et impacts. Deposition also is affe cted by altitude. Aircr aft ha ve wa ke ef fec ts and cre ate vortices which entr ain the spray , bring ing it down in a c oncentr ated plume f rom flig ht altitude. Although vortices desc ent distance s and life a re limited, if the flig ht altitude is low enoug h, the spray

cloud can be plac ed close to the g round as a conce ntrated plume, resulting in high de position peaks that could be potentially damag ing to non- targ et org anisms. Downwind movement and de position of the spray can becalc ulated and viewed using AGDisp, the primary spray -fate model for long distance move ment of a e ri a lly app lie d p e sti c ide s. Th is m od e l ha s b e e n a do pte d b y theEPAa ndis u se d a s a reg ulatory

tool with other eco- tox icolog ical models such a s PRI SM EXAMS to conduct risk assessments during the re g istration and re -re g istration of mosquito control pesticides. These tools can improve the e ffica cy of our ope rations and f

urther minimize the potential fo r u nin te nd e d n on -t arg e t impa c ts. Th is c ha pte r d e sc ri be s th e c ur

re nt t e c hn olo g y

us e d inmos qu ito a du lti c idi ng . In th e la st two deca des, F lorida mosquito control profe ssionals have foc used their attention on technolog ical deve lopments that locate, mea sure, and rec ord mosquito control activities. Withthere -r e g ist

ratio n o f m os qu ito c on tr ol p ro du c ts, themos qu ito c on tr ol i nd us try is i n a state of flux . Howeve r, the c lose relationship between the ope rators and rese arc hers within this industry

provides a unique ability to stay at the for efr ont of all chang es and challeng es. In this highly sensitive discipline there is no room f or “Status Quo.” Mosquito control techniques nee d to be the best a vailable. As ne w technolog ies andC hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 121

c hang e s inun de rs ta nd ing ari se , mo sq uit o c on tr ol m a na g e rs ne e d to inc or po rate the m in to op e ratio ns in o rd e r t o tr

uly be int e g rate d p e st m a na g e rs . Pesticide usag e re ports (in PDF format) dating back to F Y 1997-98 a re a vailable f

or do wn loa d at htt

p:/ /w ww .f la e s. or g /a e s- e nt/mos qu ito /r e po rt s. htm l
. 

### 6 . 9 REF ERE NCE S AND G ENE RAL RE ADI NG The pan international we bsite provides information from various re source s including Pe sti c ideNe ws htt

p:/ /w ww .p a n- uk .o rg/pe stn e ws / Ba rber , J .A.S., M. Gree r and M. L atham. 2006. Ultra Fine A erosols Meteor ology and Ca no py Pe ne tr a tio n inMo sq uit o Co ntr ol. 20 06 ASA B E/ NA AATe c hn ic a l Se ssi on 40 th Annual National Ag ricultural Aviation Association Convention. Ros en Shingle Creek Hotel, Orlando, Florida

Dec ember

4, 2006. Dukes, J., H. Zhong , M. Gree r, P. Hester , D. Hog an and J.A.S. Bar ber. 2004. A comparison of two ULV spray nozz le sy stems using a

multipl e swath scena

rio for the aerial application of f

enthion ag ainst adult mosquitoes. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 20: 27-35. Dukes, J., H. Zhong , M. Gree r, P. Hester , D. Hog an, J.A.S . Ba rber . 2004. A comparison of two spray

nozz le sy stems used to aerially apply the Ultra low volume a dulticide fenthion. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 20: 36-44. F lorida De pa rtme nt o f A g ri c ultur e c e rtif ic a tio n andpe sti c ideus a g e re po rt s ( www.doa cs.state.f

l.us ). Haile, D.G ., G.A. Mount, N.W. Pi erc e. 1982. Eff ect of droplet size of malathion aer osols on kill of ca g ed adult mosquitoes. Mo sq uito Ne ws 42: 576-583. Himel, C. 1969. The optimum si ze for insec ticide spray droplets. J

ou rn al o f Ec on om ic Entomology 62: 919-925. L atham, M. 2004. An introduction to computer models for pre dicting a eria l spray drift and deposit. W

ing Be ats 15: 12-14. Ma tth e w s , G
. 1 9 9 2
. P e s t i c i d e A p p l i c a t i o n M e t h o d s . H ar l o w , U K : L o n g m a n S c i e nti fi c a ndTe c hn ic a l. Mount, G.A., T.L . Bie ry

and D.G H aile. 1996. A r eview of ultralow-volume a eria l spray s of insecticide for mosquito control. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 12: 601-18. M o u n t , G
. A
. 1 9 7 0
. O p t i m u md r o p l e ts i z e f o r a d u l tm o s q u i t o c o n tr o l w i t h s p a c e s p r a ys or ae rosols of insecticide s. Mo sq uito Ne ws 30: 70-75.C hapt er 6: A dul t i ci de s and A dul t i ci di ng Page 122

Mount, G.A. 1998. A critical revie w of ultralow- volume aer osols of insecticide a pplied with vehicle- mounted g ener ators for adult mosquito control. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 14: 305-34. Ra thb u r n , C
. 1 9 7 0
. M e t h o d s o f a s s e s s i n g d r o p l e ts i z e o f i n s e c t i c i d a l s p r a y s a n df o g s. Mo sq uito Ne ws 30: 501-503. Robinson, J . 2001. Light at the end of the tunnel. W ing Be ats 12: 10-13. To mli n, C.D . ( Ed .) . 2 00 0. Th e Pe sti c ideMa nu a l. 1 2 Ed iti on . F arn ham, U K: B ri tis h th Crop Protection Council Publi cations. Yeomans, A .H. 1945. Dire ctions for de termining particle siz e of a erosols and f ine spray s. U.S. Department of Ag riculture and Bur eau of Plant Quarantine. Z hong , H., M. L atham, S. Pay ne and C. B rock. 2004. Minimizi ng the impact of the mosquito adulti cide na led on honey bees, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera : Apidae) : aerial ultra-low- volume application using a hig h-pre ssure nozzl e sy stem. J ou rn al o f Ec on om ic Entomology 97: 1-7.C hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 123 

## Ch ap ter 7 BI OLO GI CA L A ND AL TE RN AT I VE CO NT RO L

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r : D r. Jorge R ey 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : D r. E ri c Schre i ber

Summ ary Biological control wi ll not be a “magic bullet"for mosquito control i n the coming ye ars. In the near term, biological control probably wi ll be used as part of int egrated pe st manageme nt programs to compleme nt other mosquito control techniques. Currently, the most widely used biological control agents are the bac teria B a c ill us thu ri ng ie ns is subsp. isr a e le ns is and B . s ph a e ri c us 23 62 . Fur the rm ore , re c om bin an t st ra ins of t he se ba c te ria with hig hlyim

prov e d e ffi c ac y ha v e be e n d

e v e lop e d a nd

ho ld po te nti als to b e us e d. Ot he r p ro mi sin g o rg an ism s in c lud e pre da tor

y fis h and copepods, and all of these organisms require further study be fore they can be fully incorporated into mosquito control programs in an effective and econom ically feasible manne r. Consist ent support from federal, state, an d lo c al a ge nc ie s fo r b iol og ic al c on tro l re se arc h is ne c e ssa ry to i ns ure the continued e

ffectivene ss of mosquito control effor ts. Also see Chapter 5: Lar v ic ide s a nd

Lar v ic idi ng , 5 .2 .2 Mi c ro bia l La rv ic ide s. 

### 7. 1 INTRODUCTION The use of

biological org anisms or their by products to combat pe st insects, such as mos qu ito e s, is t e rm e d b iol og ic a l c on tr ol, or bio c on tr ol. Th e ov e rall p re mis e is s imp le : Org anisms that attack pe sts are g rown in the labor atory and then r elea sed into the environment to control tar g eted pe st species. Relea ses can be inoculative, w herethe biocontrol ag ent is relea sed in low numbers and allowed to multiplynatura lly , or inu nd a tiv e , w he rema ssi ve nu mbe rs of thea g e nt a

rere le a se d to c on tr ol the pe sts , u su a lly with no expectation that the biocontrol org anism will reproduc e and pe rsist naturally
. Additionally , biocontrol eff orts often involve providing acc ess to natura lly occur ring enemies of

the pests to are as whe re c ontrol is desired. One a dvantag e of some bioc ontrol ag ents like pathog ens and pa rasites is host specific ity
. Th is c ha ra c te ri sti c re du c e s impa c ts t o n on -t arg e t sp e c ie s a ndto the e nv ir on me nt. Ho st specific ity , howeve r, means that the potential marke t for new products is often na rrow. This fac t, combined with the sometimes larg e start- up costs of new products, ofte n deter s commerc ialization of biocontrol ag ents. Howe ver, in the f uture, incr ease d societal a wa re ne ss o f the imp orta nc e of e nv ir on me ntal pr ote c tio n is lik e ly to i nc re a se int e re st i nC hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 124

theus e of bio c on tr ol a g e nts . Furthe rm or e , th e inc re a sin g c os ts o f d e ve lop me nt, manufa cture , and application of chemica l pesticides and the e ver de cre asing number of products used a g ainst mosquitoes are making the use of bioc ontrol ag ents more and more attrac tive. Thus, incre ased know ledg e of a lternative c ontrol strateg ies such as bioc ontrol is neede d. A detailed disc ussion of the intricac ies of biocontrol or of the many environmenta l and biotic fac tors that influenceits effe ctiveness is bey ond the scope of this white paper
. Sc ie nti fi c a ndpo pu lar l ite ratur e on the se su bje c ts i s e xten siv e a ndre a dil y a vaila ble . A lso s e e 7
. 5 Re f

e r e n c e s a n dG e n e r a l R e a d in g . T h e o b je c ti v e o f th is c h ap te r

is to c h ar a c te r iz e thebio c on tr ol a g e nts a nda lte rn a tiv e c on tr ol s tr a te g ie s te ste d o r u se d b y F lorida mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams. 

### 7. 2 DEV ELOP MENT AN D USE OF BI OLOGI CAL CON TROL AGE NTS I N F LO RI DA M os quit oc ida l ba c te r ia The mosquitocidal bac teria Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is subsp. isr ae le ns is ( Bt i ) and B. sphaericus ( Bs ) ar e the most extensively used biolog ical contr ol ag ents in Florida (Pesticide Usa g e Reports. B ureau of Entomology and Pest Control, Florida De partment of Ag ri c ultur e a ndCon su me r S e rv ic e s ( http:// www.f laes.org/aese nt/mos qu ito /r e po rt s. htm l ). In the fisca l y ear 2004-2005, for

example, 79,530 pounds of Bt i and 7,139 pounds of Bs we reus e d b y 49 state -a

pp ro ve d mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams t o treat, respec tively , 262,314 and 12,149 ac res. The se soil-dwelling bacte ria produc e mosquitocidal cry stal tox ins during spor ulation. Mosquito l arva e ing est the tox ins during filter-f eeding and the toxins areactivate d by the mosquitoes’ hig h g ut pH. The a ctivated toxin s kill themos qu ito e s b y de g ra din g theint e rn a l ti ssu e s ( F e de ri c i et al . 2006). Rece ntly , the Mosquito Biolog ical and A lternative Control Section at F lorida Ag ricultural and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Resear ch and Educ ation Center ( PHEREC) init iated state- supported re sear ch to isolate novel mos qu ito c idal Bt

and Bs strains from mosquito habitats with the assistance of sever al mosquito control prog rams in Florida. M os quit o fis h Mosquito fish ( Gambusia spp . ) also ar e widely used in Florida
. Ga mb us ia a ffi nis and G. ho lbr oo k i arenativ e to e a ste rnNo rth A me ri c a a ndarec on sid e re d in va siv e sp e c ie s in so me oth e r a

re a s. Th e se fi sh , w hic h f e e d o n mo sq uit o la

rv a e , c a n b e pla c e d ina

va ri e ty of permanent and se mi-permane nt water habitats. Diffe renc es of opinion existon the utilit y and ac tual control bene fits derived f rom use of Ga mb us ia to c on tr ol m os qu ito e s in certain situations, and actual r esults vary from excellent contr ol to no control at all. R ec en t l y , co n ce rn s o v erp l ac i n g Gambusia in habitats whereother fish spec ies a sse mbl a g e s a

rethr e a te ne d h a ve ari se n. Caremus t betake n inpla c e me nt o f the se specie s in area s whereendemic f ish species a

re se nsitive to further e nvironmental perturbation. Additionally , investigation of endemic f ish species in these a

rea s of conce rn as potential biolog ical contr ol ag ents deserves g reater attention. An example ofC hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 125

thi s is Rivulus spp. The potential of Rivulus as a mosquito predator is curre ntly being evaluated in saltwater

habitats, espec ially

in Bre vard County
. I n s omea qu a tic ha

bit a ts, fi shfu nc tio n a s e xce lle nt m os qu ito bio c on tr ol a g e nts . T he se habitats typically

arepermanent habitats whe re Culex and An op he le s arethe primary mosquito residents, wheremosquito densiti es ar e not excessive, and w hereemer g ent veg etation is not too dense. Howe ver, in ha bitats such as salt marshe s, fish are sometimes unable to control the sudde n explos ion of larva e produc ed by rainfall or rising tides. This situation i s particularly true during the first hatc h of the sea son, wherethe mosquito popul ations numerica lly exceed what the fish can c onsume during the brief immature mosquito developmental period. Howeve r, in many situations, effec tive control can be ac hieved if the larvivorous fish a re a ffor ded ac cess to the mosquitopr od uc ing are a s. Toxorhynchites Species of pr edac eous mosquitoes in the g enus Toxorhynchites have been studied in a varie ty of urban are as for

control of c ontainer- inhabiting mosquitoes such a s the Asian tige r mosquito, Aede s albopictus
. Toxorhynchites mos qu ito e s a lso a ff e c t mo sq uit o po pu latio ns that de ve lop in the tr e e -h olee nv ir on me nt. Ho we ve r, the ir int ro du c tio n in to urban c ontainer ha

bitats has proven unsuc cessf ul (J ones and Schr eiber

1994; Schreiber and Jones 1994). I n certain container s, Toxorhynchites may consume a

larg e number

of pr e y mos qu ito larv a e , s uc h a s Ae . a e gy ptiand Ae. albopictus. Howeve r, this predator does not disperse w ell enoug h to impact the vast number of natura l and artificial container s used by

these mosquitoes. Additionally , their deve lopment time is 2-3 tim es that of the ir pr e y makin g it d if

fi c ult fo r the m to ke e p u p w iththeoth e r m or e ra pid ly developing mosquito species (Servic e 1983). Co pe pods Another g roup of biocontr ol ag ents with promise for mosquito control is comprised of preda ceous c opepods. In Florida , season- long ( Schreibe r et al . 1994) and multi-y ear ( R e y et al . 2004) control wa s achie ved in trials in tire habitats. Copepods ar e ea sy to rea r and to deliver

to targ et sites in the field (Hallmon e t al
. 19 93 ), andthe y pe rf orm w e ll when use d with certain narr ow spec trum insecticides (T ietze e t al
. 1 9 9 4 )
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, copepods c onsume a broa d varie ty of pre y and can survive in the fie ld when mosquitoes arenot present or

abundant. Morerese arc h on these org anisms is needed, pa rticularly on trials simulating ac tual, operational field conditions. Other pre dators Re se arc h o n o ther p os sib le pr e dator s o f m os qu ito e s, su c h a s o the r f ishsp e c ie s, dr a g on fl ie s, a ndfr og s is on g oin g . Cu rr e ntl y , h ow e ve r, the reis n o s ma ll- or larg e -s c a le development pr og ram for the application of these org anisms for biocontrol purpose s. The pa rasitic nematode Ro ma no me rm is spp . , the pathog enic pr otozoan Brachiola algerae ( f o r m e r l y Nosema algerae ), themos qu ito vir us Cun iN PV, a ndso me no n- dig e sti ble alg ae, among othe rs, have been e x amined as bioc ontrol ag ents by universities and the United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture ( USDA) re sear cher s and by mosquito controlC hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 126

org anizations. Thus far, re sults have bee n mix ed. Use of these or g anisms in inundative or eve n inoculative re lease prog rams is hindere d by the difficulty

of re aring them and by the terr estrial, dispersive stag e in their life c y cles. In some ca ses, the application te c hn iqu e s th a t have be e n u til ize d n e e d a dd iti on a l de ve lop me nt. Re se arc h at U niv e rs ity o f F l o ri d a, I n s t i t u t e o f F o o dan dAgr i cu l t u ra l S ci en ce s , Fl o ri d a M ed i ca l E n t o m o l o gy L aboratory

(F MEL ) is curr ently

investigating a llelopathic produc ts produced by marine and fr eshwater microalga e as pote ntial mosquit ocides, but this work is still in its i nfanc y . Birds and bats often a

re pr omoted as potential biocontrol ag ents of adult mosquitoes. Whil e bo th p re dator s e a t a du lt m os qu ito e s, the y do no t do so in s uf

fi c ie nt amou nts to imp a c t th e mos qu ito po pu latio ns . M os qu ito e s a reno t a prima ry fo odso ur c e fo r the se predators. Additionally , beca use mosquito flight beha vior is cre puscular, the y arenot active during the fee ding pe riods of most birds. Whi le bats ar e ac tive during the cor rec t time period, they

simplycan not impac t the massive numbers of adult mosquitoes available
. As the deve lopment of mosquito control technolog y moves forw ard, ne w biocontrol ag ents will be discover ed. It is hoped that among these a g ents will be cost-e ffe ctive, ecolog ically

benig n ag ents that can become an integ ral pa rt of F lorida mosquito control pr og rams. 

### 7. 3 ALTERNA TI V E CONTROL TECHNIQUES The term “alternative contr ol techniques” in essenceis a catch all for r emoval-tra pping te c hn iqu e s, re pe lle nts , me c hanic a l tr aps , b ug zap pe rs , b iot e c hn olo g ic a l de ve lop me nts , and socio-c ultural chang es. A thumbnail sketch of some of these alternative control te c hn iqu e s, the ir

me ri ts, a ndthe ir

dis a dv a nta g e s f

oll ow s.


### 7. 3. 1 Remo va l Trap pi ng Tech ni qu es Th e pr e mis e un de rl y ing re mov a l tr app ing is that a tr ap attr a c ts, c aptu re s, a ndre mov e s a signific ant portion of the biting mosquito popul ation. Subsequent mosquito populations aresmaller and, the ref

ore, r equire few er c hemical a pplications for c ontrol. Removal tr app ing is c ur

re ntl y be ing e va luate d b y

theUSD A at th e Ce nter f or Me dic a l, Ag ricultural, and Veterinary Entomology

(CMAVE) in Gainesville with the Colli er Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol D ist

ri c t, andby

theF ME L . So me of

the se stu die s u se c omm e rc ia lly a vaila blea ttr a c ta nt b a ite d tr aps a ndoth e rs areus ing baite d ta rg e ts. Up to n ow , th e se studies have lar g ely

been c onducted on a

limit ed spatial and temporal scale. So far the technolog y

has worke d best on isolated islands wher e one spe cies wa s clea rly dominant compar ed to the mainland r esidential ar eas w heremany differ ent important nuisance specie s of diffe rent g ener a we re pr esent. Diff ere nt attrac tant combinations, delivery sy stems, and trap ty

pes may be re quired to attra ct and e ffe ctively captur e diffe rent specie s. Additional studies are in prog ress, and answe rs ar e still being soug ht to such qu e sti on s a s:C hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 127 • How many and what type of trap/target should be used?
• W hat are the short and long term impacts of removal trapping on the target mosquito populati on?
• W hat influence does the flight range of the target spec ies have on the effective ness of remov al trapping? Acc eptanc e by

the public and/or pr ofessional mosquito control community of new technolog ies, such as ma ss trapping and other biological control technolog ies, will not be ea s y b ec au s e p eo p l e h av e gr o wn ac cu s t o m ed t o t h e i m m ed i at e c o n tro l o b t ai n ed t h ro u gh spraying w ith chemical insec ticides. Neve rtheless the public ne eds to be e ducate d and made to re alize that the use of se miochemical- baited tra ps/targ ets, either loc ally

or on an are a wi de sc a le , mu st b e pa

rt of a n in te g rate d p e st m a na g e me nt p ro g ram. P ark s, re so rt s, g olf c ou rs e s, a ndoth e r r e c re a tio n a re a s may beg oo d c a nd idate s to e va luate thi s technolog y . Wit h the deve lopment of sufficie ntly eff ective tr aps and dive rsity

of e ff e c tiv e a ttr a c ta nt c omb inatio ns fo r d if fe re nt m os qu ito sp e c ie s, tr app ing sy ste ms c ou ld b e u s e da s b e h a v i o r a l c o n tr o l m e a s u r e s a n da d d e dt o t h e g r o w i n g l i s to f b i o l o g i c a l l ybased te chnolog ies for mosquito control


### 7. 3. 2 M ec ha ni ca l Trap s a nd Bug Z ap pe rs The use of

elec tronic devic es to attrac t and kill fly ing mosquitoes or to re pel them by so un d is no t su pp orte d b y sc ie nti fi c re se arc h. No ne of thec ur re ntl y mark e te d p ro du c ts fu nc tio n a s a dv e rtise d. A p ub lic inf ormatio n c a mpaig n ta

rg e te d at e xpos ing thetruth about these de vices should be de veloped and implemented. A F MEL fac tsheet that dis c us se s th e a dv a nta g e s a nddis a dv a nta g e s o f v ari ou s mo sq uit o c on tr ol d e vic e s is a vaila blea t http:// edis.ifas.ufl.e du/IN171
. 

### 7. 3. 3 B i ot echnol ogy Al tho ug h b a c te ri a l in se c tic ide s, su c h a s Bt i and Bs , h av e b ee n s u cc es s fu l l y u s ed , h i gh levels of r esistance to Bs in the field havebeen r eporte d in several countries (Rao et al
. 1995; Sil va-F ilha et al . 1995; Yuan et al . 2000; Su and Mulla 2004). Furthermore , althoug h no resistanc e to Bt i has bee n reported in the field, labor atory selec tion of m o s q u i t o e s w i t h t o x i n s p r o d u c e db y Bt i results in high le vels of re sistance ( Wirth et al
. 1997). These f indings strong ly

sug g est that novel mosquitocidal bacte ria with a c omplex of toxin s h a vin g dif

fe re nt m od e s o f a c tio n a

rene e de d. On e way

to a c hie ve thi s g oa l is to isolate novel bac teria discusse d earlier in this chapter . Another w ay is to make rec ombinant bacteria with improved ef fica cy . A g ood example of this approac h is the construction of Bt i p ro d u ci n g Bs toxin s th a t sh ow e d h ig h p ote nc y a g a ins t Cx. quinquefasciatus being 21-fold as pote nt as the wild-ty pe Bt i (Park et al . 2 00 5) . T he reis also rese arc h underw ay

to develop transg enic a lga e and c y anobac teria ba sed on the tox ins of Bt i and Bs
.C hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 128

Autocidal contr ol is a method of pest control in which ste rile or g enetically altere d insects ar e re lease d to reduc e the r eproduc tive succe ss of the loca l insect population. This type of c ontrol can beachie ved via the r elea se of sterile males or by manipulation or a lte ratio n o f the g e no me of thetarg e t po pu latio n. Th e the ory of ste ri le -m a le re le a se c ome s f ro m th e su c c e ssf

ul s te ri le -m a le e ra dic a tio n p ro g ram f or thesc re w w orm f

ly in North America. Implementation of sterile- male tec hnology for c ontrolling F lorida mos qu ito e s h a s a

nu mbe r o f l og ist ic a l a nde c on omi c ob sta c le s. Mu c h b a sic re se arc h s til l needs to be conducte d befor e sterile- male tec hnology could be use d for c ontrol of any g iven spec ies in Florida. Sterile-male r elea se works w ell in situations where tar g et populations are low and dis pe rs a l is lim ite d, su c h a s sc re w w orm f lie s a ndMe dit e rr a ne a n f

ru it f lie s. With mos qu ito e s, su c h a s Ae. taeniorhync hus and Ae . v exan s, the number of fertile males emer g ing f

rom a ty pical brood is so larg e that it would be imprac tical to mass rea r sufficie nt sterile males to compe te with them. Be rryman et al . (1973) indicated that ratios of sterile:fertile male s of 40:1 can f ail to reduc e populations. Consider the number of ste ri le ma le s th a t w ou ld h a ve to b e sync hr on ou sly raise d to c omp e te wi th the sin g le e me rg e nc e fr om a

50 0 a c resa lt m ars h, wh e rebil lio ns of a du lt Ae. taeniorhync hus em er ge in a 24 hour pe riod. Ge ne tic ma nip ulatio n o f m os qu ito po pu latio ns re qu ir e s mu c h a dd iti on a l r e se arc h if operational methods are to be develope d. Some possible ex amples include the introduction of a letha l ge ne into the mosquito population and the incorporation of autog eny , a cha

rac teristic in fema le mosquitoes whereeg g s can belaid without the re qu ir e me nt f

or a blo odme a l. R e se arc he rs a t F ME L ha ve dis c ov e re d th a t tryps in modulating oostatic hormone (TMOF ) can stop dige stion in m osquito larvae, c ausing them to die of starvation. They have g enetically

eng ineer ed the g ree n alg a Chl ore lla and y e a st t o p ro du c e TM OF . T he se re c omb inant o rg a nis ms s tarv e mos qu ito larv a e to d e a th afte r they eat the c ells and, in the future , could be mass- produce d, formulated, and app lie d o ve r l arg e are a s.


### 7. 3. 4 So ci o- cu l t ur al Chan ge s This categ ory

of alternative contr ols includes human avoidanc e of mosquitoes. Two lifesty le chang es in Florida that have g reatly

reduc ed mosquito contact with human being s are air c onditioning and tele vision viewing. Today people se ldom siton a porc h at dusk or at nig ht during the summer. Additional cultural chang es that can be employ ed include w earing pr otective c lothing a ndthec urta ilm e nt o f o utd oo r a c tiv iti e s w he n th e po te nti a l f or mos qu ito a tta c k is g re a te st. Mo sq uit o c on tr ol c a n in fl ue nc e thepu bli c pe rc e pti on of mos qu ito pr ob le ms thr ou g h e du c a tio na l pr og rams i n s c ho ols , th ro ug h th e me dia , andby c oo pe ratio n w ith g overnme nt ag encie s at the loca l, state, and fe dera l level. With continui ng urbanization, residents see m to be becoming even le ss tolerant of insec t pests. Howeve r, with the re c e nt p ub lic ity

of mos qu ito -b orne dis e a se s su c h a s We st N ile a ndoth e r e nc e ph a lit ide s,C hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 129

public rec eptiveness to tempora ry lifesty le chang es for

protec tion ag ainst mosquito bi tes m ayb e i n cr ea s i n g. 

### 7 . 4 CON CLU SI ONS Whil e it may

be desira ble to incre ase the use of biocontr ol and alternative contr ol methods in Florida mosquito control prog rams, many unanswe red que stions prevent immediate implementation of more than a fe w exist ing me thods. The only biocontrol ag ents or alternative tec hnology curr ently included in mosquito control prog rams ar e the mosquitocidal bacteria, Bt i and Bs , and the mosquito fish Ga mb us ia spp. Other technolog ies may

be included in the f

uture, but these me thods may be limited to fewe r prog rams with one or

two specific mosquito problems. Change s in the state laws whic h g overn the sale and advertisement of mosquito control devices or repe llent devices of doubtful eff

icac y arestrong ly

rec ommended.


### 7 . 5 REF ERE NCE S AND G ENE RAL RE ADI NG Be rryman, A.A., T P. B og y o and L .C. Dickman. 1973. In : Procee dings of a panel organized by the J

oint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Ene rgy in Food and Agriculture. Vienna, 1971, International Atomic Energ y Ag ency , Vienna. Fe deric i, B.A., H .W. P ark and Y. Sakano. 2006. Insecticidal Protein Cry stals of Bacillus thuringiensis. In: Shively , J .M. (Ed.). Mi c ro bio log y Mo no gr ap hs No. 1: In c lus ion s in Prokaryote s. Springe r-Ve rlag , Be rlin-Heide lberg . pp. 195-236. Hallmon, C.F., A.M. L opez, W.L . Turner and E.T. Schr eiber . 1993. A modified handpump spray er f

or the distribution of copepods f or the c ontrol of containe r bre eding mosquitoes. Journal of the Florida Mosquito Cont rol Association 64: 82-83. Jone s, C.J. andE. T. Sc hr e ibe r. 19 94 . Co lor a ndhe ig ht a ff

e c ts o n o vip os iti on sit e pref ere nce of Toxorhynchites splende ns and Toxorhynchites rutilus rutil us (Diptera : Culicidae) in the labor atory
. Environmental Entomology 23: 130-135. Park, H.W., D. K. B ideshi, M.C. W irth, J .J . J ohnson, W.E. W alton and B .A. Fe deric i. 20 05 . Re c omb inant l arv ic idal ba c te ri a wi th m ark e dly

imp ro ve d e ff

ic a c y a g a ins t Culex vector s of West Nile Virus. American J ournal of T

ropical Medicine and Hygiene 72: 732-738. Rao, D.R., T.R. Mani, R. Rajendran, A. S. Joseph, A. Gajanana and R. Reube n. 1995. Deve lopment of a hig h level of r esistance to Bacillus sphaericus in a field population of Culex quinquefasciatus from Koc hi, I ndia. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 11: 1-5. Rey , J .R., S. O'Connell, S. Suárez, Z . Menende z, L .P. L ounibos and G. B y er. 2004. L aboratory

and fie ld studies of Macroc yclops albidus (Crustace a: Copepoda) forC hapt er 7: B i ol ogi cal and A l t er nat i ve C ont rol Page 130

biological control of mosquitoes in artificial c ontainers in a sub- tropical e nvironment. Journal of Vector Ec ology 28: 124-134. Schreibe r, E.T., W.L . Turner , A.M. L opez, C.F. Hallmon and G.G . Marten. 1993. Evaluation of two c y clopoid copepods f or Aede s albopictus control in tires in the Panhandle of

Florida at low introduction rate s. Journal of the Florida Mosquito Cont rol Association 64: 73-77. Schreibe r, E.T. and C.J . J ones. 1994. Evaluation of inoculative re lease s of Toxorhynchites splendens (Diptera : Culi cidae ) in urban e nvironments in Florida
. Environmental Entomology 23: 770-777. Schreibe r, E.T., C.F. H allmon, K.M. Eskridg e and G .G. Marte n. 1996. Effe cts of Mesoc yclops longisetus (C op e po da : Cy c lop ida e ) o n mo sq uit oe s th a t in ha bit tir e s: I nfluenc e of litter ty

pe, quality

and quantity
. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 12: 688-694. S e r v i c e , M
. W
. 1 9 8 3
. B i o l o g i c a l c o n tr o l o f m o s q u i t o e s - h a s i ta

f u t u r e ? Mo sq uito Ne ws 43: 113-120. Silva-Filha, M.H., L . Reg is, C. Nielsen-L eRoux and J.F. Charles. 1995. L ow-leve l resistanc e to Bacillus sphaericus in a field-tr eate d population of Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera : Culi cidae ). Journal of Economic E ntomology 88: 525-530. Su, T. a ndM. S. M ull a . 2 00 4. Do c ume ntatio n o f h ig h- le ve l Bacillus sphaericus 2362 resistanc e in field populations of Culex quinquefasciatus br e e din g in p oll ute d w a te r i n Thailand. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 20: 405-411. Tietze, N.S., P.G. Hester, K.R. Shaff er, S. Presc ott and E.T. Schre iber. 1994. Integ rate d m an age m en to f w as t e t i re m o s q u i t o es u t i l i z i n g Mesoc yclops longisetus (Copepoda:Cy clopidae) , Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is , Bacillus sphaericus , and methoprene
. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 10: 363-373. Wirth, M.C ., G.P. Georg hiou and B .A. Fe deric i. 1997. Cy tA enable s Cry I V endotoxins of Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is to overc ome hig h levels of CryI V re sistance in the mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus
. Procee ding of the Nati onal Academ y of Scienc es , U.S.A. 94: 10536-10540. Yuan, Z ., Y. Z hang , Q. Cai and E.Y. Liu. 2000. High- level fie ld resistanceto Bacillus sp ha e ric us C3-41 in Culex quinquefasciatus from southern China. Biocontrol Science and Technology 10: 41-49.

## Chap ter 8

DI S EA S E S UR VE I LL AN CE , OU TB RE AK S , AND CONTROL IN FLORIDA

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r : D r . Jonat han D ay 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : D r. D on al d S hroyer

Summ ary Historically, Florida has suf fered from repe ated large epide mics of serious mosquito-borne disease, including ye llow f eve r, malaria, dengue, and arboviral ence

phalitides. Many of these disease s remain a serious threat to Florida residents. Flori da's proximity to areas in the Cari bbean Ba sin tha t are c ur re ntl

y su ffe rin g fr om the se dis e as e s c on tri bu te s to c on c e rn ab ou t th e po te nti al f or the ir re su rg e nc e in t

he sta te . Th e sta te also is susceptible to invasion by other eme rging diseases arising in t he re gio n. In the pa st 3 5 y e ar s, St. Lou is e nc e

ph ali tis v iru s a nd

e as te rn equine e ncephalitis virus have be come increasingly important in Florida. Mo re re c e ntl

y , fo llo win g th e de te c tio n o f W e st N ile v iru s in Ne w York State during the fall of

1999, Florida experie nced e xtensive morbidity and mo rta lit y in h um an s a nd

e qu ine s b e gin nin g in 20 01 . Th ou gh po or ly do c um e nte d, the e c on om ic c os ts a sso c iate d wi th m os qu ito -b or ne dis e as e are prob ab ly growi ng ra the r th an su bs idi ng as de v e lop me nt o f th e sta te progresses. Su rv e ill an c e an d c on tro l of mo sq uito- bo rn e dis e as e was on c e lar ge ly c oo rd ina te d a nd

fin an c e d b

y the sta te of F

lor ida . I n re c e nt d

e c ad e s, howeve r, state involveme nt has declined. Ac tive disease surv eillance and control is now predominantly a local init iative supported by local reve nues. Most counties c onduct no active surveillance for mosquitoborne disease. I

t is generally acc epted that Florida mosquito control agencie s are maintained by local taxpay ers only where the re is demand for c on tin uo us re lie

f fr om bit ing “nu isa nc e ” mo sq uitoe s – with c on c e rn for mosquito-borne disease being only a se condary c onsideration. The Di v isi on of E

nv iro nm e nta l H

e alt h, Fl or ida De

pa rtm e nt o

f H e alt h monitors human cases of mosquito-borne and other re portable human diseases, while the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servic es indepe ndently monitors horse case s of W est Nile ence

phalitis and e as te rn e qu ine e nc e

ph ali tis . A c tiv e su rv e ill an c e is c on du c te d fo r W e st Nile e nc e ph ali tis , S t. L ou is e nc e

ph ali tis , a nd

e as te rn e qu ine e nc e

ph ali tis in F lor ida an d th e Fl or ida De pa rtm e nt o

f H e alt h p ub lis he s we e k lyC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 132

arbovirus summary reports with sentinel chicke n, horse, mosquito, bird, and human surveillance data. W he re pr ac tic e d, e nc e

ph ali tis su rv e ill an c e in F lor ida c on sis ts p rim ar ily of: 1) monitoring virus exposure in sentinel chic kens and 2) monitoring density of mosquito vec tor species. W ild avian mortalit

y, espe cially that of c or v ids ( blu e jay s a nd

c ro ws) , a nd

e qu ine mo rta lit

y als o is us e d to monitor W

est Nile ence

phalitis virus transmission. C limatic conditions and mosquito infection rates are also monitored by some jurisdictions. Elevate d rates of virus exposure in se ntinel chicke ns can indicate an elev ated risk of transmission t o the human population. A cluster of animal c as e s a lso ma

y ind ic ate po te nti al f

or tra ns mi ssi on to h um an s. Pr op e rly interpreted, ve ctor density data can be used for a long-range predic tion of periods of potential increased transmission. High mosquit o densities may support extensive enzootic transmission of t hese v iruses, but they do not ine v ita blyle ad

to e pid e mi c ac tiv ityin h um an s. The re sp on se to e pid e mi c mosquito-borne disease c an involve: 1) aggressive insec ticide applications targeting t he immature and adult stages of the ve ctor mosquito populati ons and 2) notification of the public about increased arboviral transmissi on risk to reinforce the use of personal protection that reduce s exposure to biting mosqui toes.

. 

### 8. 1 HI STORY OF DISE ASE OUTBREAKS Th e pr e va le nc e of

fr e sh wate r andc oa sta l w e tland s inF lorida a ndthesu btr op ic a l c lim a te of muc h o f the state we refo rm ida bleob sta c le s to its c olo nizatio n b y Eu ro pe a ns . T he se c ha ra c te ri sti c s ma de thehu ma n in ha bit a nts (andthe ir

do me sti c a nim a ls) pa

rtic ula rl y vu lne ra bleto a va ri e ty of mos qu ito -t

rans mitte d p a tho g e ns a ndpa ra sit e s. Mo st o f the se disease a g ents areendemic in F lorida, and some have take n on a g reater prominenc e as human deve lopment increa singly impinges on pr eviously

uninhabited re g ions.
8.1.1 West Nile F ever

(WN) Wes t N ile F e ve r ( WN) is c aus e d b y a F la viv irus that f

ir st e nte re d F lorida

in the autu mn of 2000 or the w inter/spring of 2001. The likely mode of transport was in mig rating birds and the location of the initial outbreak and amplification was in the Centra l Florida Panhandle. Thetransmission dy namics of West Nile virus (WNV) in F lorida betwe en 20 01 a nd20 06 app e ar t o b e ve ry sim ila r t o th e tr a ns mis sio n d y namic s o f S t. L ou is ence phalitis virus (SL EV) whic h has bee n reported in Florida since 1952. It appea

rs that wi ld b ir ds areimp orta nt ampl if ic a tio n h os ts f

or WNV a ndthat th e ma

jor mos qu ito vector s include Culex nigripalpus t h r o u g h o u tt h e s t at e a n dp o s s i b l y Cx. quinquefasciatus in the F lorida

Pa nh a nd le . Co mpa

re d w ithoth e r p art s o f the c on tin e ntal U nit e d St a te s, Florida has bee n spare d from a ma jor WN epidemic. Relatively few human ca ses have been r eporte d during the seve n y ear s WNV has been e ndemic in Florida (2001-2007) when an aver ag e of 29 huma n case s was re ported during eac h of the seve n y ear s. TheC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 133

heavie st W NV transmissi on y ear in Florida so f

ar w as 2003 whe n 92 human ca ses wer e reported from throug hout the state. F ocal outbre aks havebeen r eporte d from the F lorida Pa nh a nd le in 2 00 3, Da de Cou nty in 2 00 4, a ndPin e lla s Co un ty in 2 00 5. Th e re a so n( s) for the a bsenceof a ma

jor WN epidemic in Florida remain unclear , but in all likelihood, thee nv ir on me ntal f

a c tor s f ou ndin F lorida

wi ll f a vo r a ma jor WN e pid e mic so me tim e in the future
. 8.1.2 St. Loui s Encephal itis (SLE ) St. L ouis Encepha litis (SLE) is caused by a F lavivirus that is endemic to F lorida and normally associate d with wild birds (whereit causes no disea se) and sever al spec ies of m o s q u i t o , m o s tn o t ab l y Culex nigripalpus
. In t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u ry , S LE became the pre dominant mosquit o-borne disease of humans in Florida and was responsible for

rec urring epidemics in the south and c entra l parts of the state . Major epidemics oc curr ed in 1959, 1961, 1962, 1977, and 1990. The1990 epidemic wa s the larg est (226 docume nted ca ses) and most widesprea d (ca ses in 28 counties), with 11 fata lities. The 1959-1962 outbrea ks in the Tampa B ay

are a involved 55 fatalities among st 315 cases. Thetrue impac t of SLE during epidemics is difficult to assess, since there aretypically

sever al hundre d mild or asy mptomatic case s g ener ated f or eve ry la bo ratory -d ia g no se d r e po rt e d c a se . T he 19 77 a nd19 90 SLE e pid e mic s r e su lte d in c on sid e ra bledis ru pti on of

no rm a l a c tiv iti e s o f p e rm a ne nt r e sid e nts a ndne g a tiv e ly impacted tourism in aff

ecte d parts of the state. Economic loss to the state ha s not been well-doc umented, but the 1990 epide mic alone is likely to have be en re sponsible for milli ons of dollars of dire ct and indire ct losses.
8.1.3 Eastern Equi ne Encephal itis (EEE) Ea ste rne qu inee nc e ph a lit is ( EE E) dis e a se is f re qu e ntl y a fata l a ff lic tio n o f h umans , e qu ine s, a nde xotic a vian s pe c ie s ( e.g ., pheasants, emus, and ostriches) . The ve terinary importance of EEE a dds considera bly to the economic impac t of EEE virus (EE EV). The EEEV is an Alpha virus that is endemic to F lorida. Two transmissi on cy cles of E EEV ar e reported in Florida . The e nzooti c transmissi on cy cle involves transmissi on of EEEV betwee n Cul ise ta m e lan ur a and wild birds in fre shwater swamps. Periodica lly , EEEV br e aks ou t of

thee nzo oti c tr a ns mis sio n c y c le s a ndis t rans mitte d to ho rs e s a ndhu ma ns in are as surrounding the fre shwater swamps. The ve ctors for these sec ondary

transmission cy cles a re not known, but may

involve fre shwater

mosquito species in the g ener a Aede s , Ma ns on ia , and Coq uil le tti dia . Epidemics of EEE have neve r bee n reported from F lorida. Most human case s are isolated and fe w in number (r are ly more than oneor two per y ear ). Howe ver, human EEE ca ses usually occur in foca l are as whe re an incre ase in the number of hor se ca ses is reported. Despite the commerc ial availability of an e ffe ctive EE E v a c c inefo r h or se s, se ve ral hu ndre d h or se s a ree sti mate d to dieof

EE E e a c h y e ar i n Florida (most unreporte d throug h officia l channe ls). The annual cost of ve terinary car e for pr evention and tr eatment of EEE in horses wa s estimated to exceed $1,000,000 pe r y ear in a study

conducte d during 1982 and 1983 and published by Wil son and collea g ues in 1 98 6. As wi th S LE v irus (S LEV ), EE EV is p re do min a ntl y a sso c iate d w itha

wi ld bird-mosquito transmission cy cle. Humans and horse s that are infec ted with EEEV a reC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 134

re g ard e d a s b iol og ic a l de a d- e nd s ( i.e. , mo sq uit oe s f e e din g on the se inf

e c te d, vir e mic hosts do not become infe cted and areunable to transmit t he virus) de spite the sever e disease e x perie nced by

these hosts.
8.1.4 Dengue (DEN) Deng ue is a disea se with sy mptoms rang ing f rom simple flu-like illness to severe hemorrha g ic sy mptoms, shock, encephalitis , or death, and is cause d by any of four distinct deng ue virus spec ies (DEN -1, -2, - 3, or -4) . Nea rly unique among arboviruse s (arthropod-borneviruses), the de ng ue viruses utilize humans as their only natura l verte brate host. Ae de s a e gy ptiand Ae. albopictus arethe principa l mosquit o vector s of deng ue virus in most of the world. B oth of these spe cies a re e ndemic in Florida. Deng ue has bec ome an incr easing ly serious threat throug hout the Caribbean and Centra l and South America in the pa st 30 y ear s, and all four deng ue viruses ( DEN-1, - 2, -3, and - 4) oc c ur in the re g ion . A lth ou g h e nd e mic de ng ue tr a ns mis sio n h a s n ot b e e n r e po rt e d in Florida since the late 1940s, sever al laboratory -diag nosed ca ses of de ng ue in trave lers ar e reg ularly detec ted by

State health off

icials. Epidemics of this disease had a ma jor impact du ri ng thee arl y

de ve lop me nt o f the state . D e ng ue wa s f ir st r e c og nize d inF lorida in 1850 and in 1934 an e pidemic with more than 15,000 c ases wa s reported throug hout peninsular F lorida.
8.1.5 Yellow Fe ver ( YF ) Like the DENviruses, Ye llow Feve r (YF ) is a F lavivirus. It can be transmitted in a mos qu ito -m a n- mos qu ito c y c le , b ut a ba sic jun g le c y c le of

YF ma int a ins thevir

us in natur e . T he jun g le c y c le inv olv e s o bs c ur e fo re st- dw e lli ng mos qu ito e s th a t c a n tr a ns mit YF vir us (YF V) dire ctly

to their offspring via

infec ted eg g s or to fore st monkey specie s bitten by these mosquitoes. Urban transmission cy cles involving humans aremaintained b y Ae . a e gy

ptimos qu ito e s, a lth ou g h la bo ratory stu die s h a ve sh ow n th a t Ae. albopictus is a potential YF V vec tor as we ll. Although YF has not bee n seen in F lorida for many deca des, it was the sc ourg e of the are a until its l ast appe arance in 1905. Ye llow Feve r was fir st reporte d in Pensacola in 1764, and in 1874 killed 354 of that city ' s 1,400 residents. Similarly , 1,500 of F erna dina' s 1,600 residents we re infe cted with YF in 1877. Yellow F ever

has not bee n era dicated f rom South America w hereit curre ntly circ ulates in a jun g le tr a ns mis sio n c y c le that oc c a sio na lly re su lts in s po ra dic hu ma n c a se s inB ra zil, Vene zuela, Ecua dor, Peru, and Bolivia. Ye llow Feve r also occ urs in most of Africa
. Thereis an eff

ective va ccine for YF

that should be taken by

trave lers to jung le ar eas of South America or

Afric a.
8.1.6 Venez uelan E qui ne Encephal itis (VEE) Vene zuelan equine e ncephalitis (VEE) is caused by a complex of closely

related but distinct Alphavirus subtypes. One VEE virus (V EEV) subty pe, Eve rg lades virus (EVEV ), wa s discovere d in the 1960s in the Everg lades but is now known fr om as far north as Indian River County . The EVE V virus is appar ently maintained in cotton mice, cotton rats, ra ccoons, and opossums, with t ransmission by the bite of CulexC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 135

Melanoc onion subg enus mosquitoes, Aede s taeniorhynchus bla c k s a ltm ars h mo sq uit oe s, and other s. The EVEV virus is appare ntly not a sourceof diseasein horses, but serious human illness due to infec tion with thi s virus has bee n documented in two F lorida residents. Othe r variants of VEE virus ha ve bee n responsible for periodic e quine epidemics of V EEV in northern South America and in Central America. Most re cently , a 1995 VEE epide mic in South America re portedly involved at least 13,000 human c ases. I n Colombi a, transmissi on seeme d to be associated with Ae. taeniorhync hus and Psorophora columbiae mosquitoes.
8.1.7 Malaria Hu ma n malari a

is c aus e d b y

inf e c tio n w ithon e of

fo ur pr oto zoa n p ara sit e s ( Plasmodium s p ec i es ) t h ath av e aco m p l ex l i fe cy cl e r eq u i ri n g Anopheles mos qu ito e s a s in te rm e diate hosts. Nearly

all of the fourteen spe cies of Anopheles mosquitoes found in Florida ha ve been show n capa

ble of transmitt ing the Plasmodium pa ra sit e s, a ndhis toric a lly

ma lari a was a major impediment to the ec onomic development of the state. B etwee n 1917 and 1930, 33 of F lorida’s 67 c ounties had annua l malaria de ath rates of 100 or moreper 100,000 residents. During the 1930s and 1940s, mosquito control efforts contributed to a larg e re duction in malaria c ases in F lorida. Worldwide, malaria is a g rowing int e rn a tio na l pr ob le m. A nn ua lly , th e reare40 0- 50 0 mi lli on c a se s o f m a lari a , w itha t le a st 2 milli on fata lities. L arg e amounts of f unds have be en provide d by the U.S. Government and the B ill and Melinda Gate s Foundation to combat this problem. Despite the dec line of malaria transmission in North America , dozens of imported malaria case s are reported a nn ua lly in F lorida

re sid e nts wh o h a ve re turne d f ro m in te rn a tio na l tr a ve ls. Th e se imp orte d c a se s p ro vid e theop po rtun ity to i nf e c t lo c a l mo sq uit o p op ulatio ns , ree stablishing transmissi on within Florida. In fac t, a camper in Gulf County in the Florida panhandle acquir ed malaria from local mosquit oes in 1990, as did two individuals in P alm Be ach County in 1996, and eig ht individuals i n the same a rea of Pa lm B e a c h Co un ty

in 2 00 3, hig hli g hti ng thepo te nti a l f or re ne we d e nd e mic ma lari a transmission in the St ate.
8 . 1 . 8 Do g H ea rt w o rm Dog heartworm is a chr onic disease of dog s and sometimes cats that is due to a mosquito-transmitted filarial worm pa rasite ( Di ro

fil ar ia i mm iti s ). L arg e a du lt w orms dw e ll i n th e c a nin e he art

a ndre le a se larg e nu mbe rs of mic ro sc op ic , e mbry on ic wo rm s (microf ilariae ) into the bloodstream. Micr ofilariaeareinge sted by blood-fee ding mosquitoes and develop into infec tive 3 stag e larvae w hich eve ntually infec t the salivary rd g la nd s o f s us c e pti blemos qu ito sp e c ie s. Th e 3 sta g e larv a e e sc ape mos qu ito mou thp art s rd during blood-fee ding to infe ct a ne w mammalian host (idea lly , another dog ) and the n migr ate to the he art whe re the y mature to the a dult stage . Untreated, hea rtworm is often a fata l di se a se in d og s. Hu ma n e xpos ur e to i nf e c tiv e he art wo rm

larv a e is p ro ba

bly common, since many

of F lorida' s common mosquito s pecie s are potential vector s. Although he artworms fail to fully complete de velopment in humans and c ause no r eal dis e a se , th e inv a din g wo rm s a reso me tim e s d e te c te d inlun g X- ray s, wh e rethe y aree a sil y c on fu se d w ithc a nc e ro us le sio ns . Pr e ve nti on a ndma na g e me nt o f h e art wo rm in d og s isC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 136

best ac complished by

use of a vailable pha

rmac euticals whic h kill the infective larvae that areintroduced by

the infec ted mosquitoes.
8.1.9 Mosquito Ann oyance and Discom fort Although mosquito control prog rams cannot directly addre ss the needs of

those aff ecte d, a fe w minor public hea lth consequenc es caused by mosquitoes should be mentioned. An undocumented but pr esumably small proportion of the human population experienc es true a lle rg ic re a c tio ns to m os qu ito bit e s. Un do ub te dly , a larg e r n umb e r o f p e op le (espe cially

children) suffe r fr om self-induce d injury related to excessive scratching of fr e shmos qu ito bit e s. Th is s c ratc hin g re sp on se c a n c aus e c on sid e ra blea larm in p are nts of infants and does produc e some risk of se condary bacte rial infec tion. Another documented thoug h rar e phenome non is the sy ndrome de scribed a s entomophobia. En tom op ho be s e xpe ri e nc e a n u nc on tr oll able , ir ratio na l f e ar o f i ns e c ts r e su lti ng fr om the ir belief that their bodies ar e infe sted (despite e vidence to the contra ry ). Entomophobes may ind uc e nu me ro us se c on da ry skin l e sio ns by

sc ra tc hin g ima g ina

ry bit e s a ndthi s reinfor ces the ir conviction of a persona l insect infestation.


### 8 . 2 ECO NOMI C CO ST S OF S URV EI LL ANCE , P REV ENT I ON, AND CONTROL It appea rs that therehas neve r bee n a ca ref ul analy sis of the state-w ide costs of surveillance , preve ntion, and control of mosquito-borne diseases in F lorida. Such an a na ly sis sh ou ld i nc lud e c os ts that a c c ru e du ri ng no rm a l a nde pid e mic y e ars . Co sts incurre d by

mosquito control prog rams, public health ag encie s, businesses – as we ll as the cumulative medic al and other costs incurre d by

individual citiz ens – should be part of the ana ly sis. The tourism industryand school a dminist rators be moaned loss of re venue during the 1990 epidemic of SLE in Florida w hen cancellation of sc hool-sponsored outdoor athletic e vents (espe cially high sc hool football g ames) w as fr equently cited. During non-epide mic y ear s, disease- related re sponses by mosquito control prog rams and public health ag encie s do not constitute a major part of their budg ets, but the collec tive, state-wide expenditure (if c alculate d) would proba bly be substantial. Mosquito-borne diseases in F lorida produc e a sig nificant c ost to the St ate, e ven whe n not at the fore front of public attention. Costs associated with single human ca ses of disea ses like SLE, WN, and EEE can be enormous and dr ain per sonal and public funds a like. Non-fatal case s of WN, SL E, and EE E o ft e n s uf

fe r r e sid ua l ne ur olo g ic a l dama g e , andfu ll r e c ov e ry to a pr od uc tiv e lif

e is not alway s possible. A 1995 cost analy sis of EEE survivors in Massac husetts reve aled that life-time medical car e and support for a c hild surviving seve re EE E was approximately

$3 milli on, exceeding the ec onomic burden imposed by other major infec tions (including AIDS). Even mild EEE ca ses that did not suffer chronic residual damag e experienc ed an e conomic burde n of $21,000. The Ma ssachuse tts study conclude d that the costs of a single sever e ca se of EEEfar exceede d direc t costs of statewide a eria l adulticiding during pe riods of epide mic risk. Thereis also a g rowingC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 137

body of evide nce that WN survivors freque ntly requirecostly

long- term medica l car e. A 2 0 0 6 s tu d y

b y Ca r s o n a n dc o ll e a g u e s o f

4 9 p a ti e n ts s u r v iv in g WNf e v e r o r WN neuroinva sive disease found that half ha d linge ring health issues 13 months after diag nosis, including fatigue , memory problems, depr ession, and tre mors. 

### 8. 3 SU R V EILLA N C E FOR M OSQ U ITO-BOR N E D ISEA SE IN F LO RI DA Vec tor-bornedisease sy stems offer specia l challeng es to those re sponsible for pre vention a ndc on tr ol o f d ise a seou tbr e aks . With th e e xce pti on s o f Y Fa ndJapane se e nc e ph a lit is, c omm e rc ia lly

pr od uc e d h uman v a c c ine s a reno t a vaila

ble . M os t ve c tor -b orne dis e a se sy ste ms h a ve c omp le x trans mis sio n c y c le s th a t in vo lvemul tip le ho st s pe c ie s. Th e se ho sts c a n b e he a vil y

inf lue nc e d b y

rainf a ll and te mpe ratur e patte rn s, fa c tor s th a t area lso inhere ntly

unpredic table. Consequently , outbreaks of mosquito-borne disea se cannot be reliably predic ted except in a g ener al way , or at be st onlyover a short period of time. Deng ue provide s a dramatic illustration of the difficulty in predicting impending epidemic a ctivity . Deng ue outbre aks ar e notoriously difficult to predic t, despite the fa ct that hu ma ns aretheon ly

ve rt e br a te ho st i nv olv e d. Th is s itu a tio n is true e ve n inPue rt o Ric o, wh ic h e xpe ri e nc e s e nd e mic de ng ue a c tiv ity a nn ua lly wi th p e ri od ic ou tbr e aks , despite the pre senceof the Center s for Disea se Control and Preve ntion's pre stigious deng ue labor atory

in San J uan. Z oonotic diseases suc h as WN, SLE, and EEE that involve disease c y cles in other ve rtebrate spec ies areeven mor e proble matic. Unlike many

diseases of

humans, mosquito-borne disea ses ar e not transmitted per son-toperson but via one or more inse ct vec tors. Medica l and public hea lth workers that are m o r e a c c u s t o m e dt o d e a l i n g w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l i n f e c t i o u s d i s e a s e s d o n o ta l w a ys app re c iate thi s f

un dame ntal di sti nc tio n. Pub lic he a ltha g e nc ie s a reun de rs ta nd ably reluc tant to issue Mo sq uito- bo rn e Il lne ss A le rts until at least one human c ase is see n. Howeve r, it has bee n repe atedly established that eme rg ency measure s to reducearbovira l ence phalitis transmissi on arelarg ely ineffe ctive if de lay ed until the index case appe ars. F or SLE, mos t of

thec a se s ina n e pid e mic ha ve a lr e a dy re c e ive d an in fe c tio us bit e fr om a mosquito before the initial case be comes symptomatic and is identified by laboratory testing. Timely

surveillancedata and a quick ve ctor c ontrol response to se ntinel, animal dis e a se , andve c tor

su rv e ill a nc e data areclea rly essential.


### 8. 4 OR GA N IZ A TION OF DISE A SE SU R V EILLA N C E IN F LO RI DA Surveillance and contr ol of mosquito-borne disea se in Florida was initially

the responsibilityof the State g overnme nt. I n fac t, YF e pidemics wer e the stimulus behind thec re a tio n o f the F lorida State B oa

rdof He a lth(F SB H) in 1 88 9. I n it s e arl y y e ars , F SB H w a s h e a vil y

inv olv e d w ithc on tr ol o f Y F , D EN , andma lari a , w hil e in the e arl y 1960s emphasis switched to the e merg ing pr oblem of SLE. This focus prompted the development of

the Epidemiolog y

Resear ch Center

in Tampa to provide la

boratoryC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 138

diag nostic service s and conduc t resea rch r elated to F lorida ar

boviruses. F ollowing the 1977 centr al Florida SLE epidemic ( 110 case s in 20 counties), the fir st statewide arbovirus surveillance prog ram wa s established by FSB H. This prog ram provide d laboratory

service s and financ ial assistance to local ag encie s to monit or transmission of SLEV and EE EV by

monitoring sentinel c hickens maintaine d in the field. This support provided important information on the seasonality of transmission in the limi ted number of participating c ounties. The F SBH wa s incorporated into the new De partment of Hea lth and Rehabilitative Service s (FD HRS) in 1976. I n 1997, this department wa s reor g anized, and all health functions weretransfe rre d to the new F lorida De partment of Hea lth (FDO H). Only fourtee n counties have monitored sentinel chicke ns for a ll 28 y ear s that the surveillanceprog ram ha s been in e x istence. A lthough the State c ontinues to provide serolog ic testing of sentinel blood samples, state f unding f or other c osts of the prog ram disappea red in the 1980s. It can be arg ued that the se ntinel chicken pr og ram is no long er fundame ntally

a state surveillance prog ram, a s participation is entirely depende nt on the int e re st andre so ur c e s o f the loc a l a g e nc y . Cu rr e nt p artic ipants arety pic a lly mos qu ito control prog rams, althoug h a fe w county health depa

rtments (CHDs – part of the F DOH structure ) ar e dire ctly

involved. Participants submit serum samples to the FD OH B ureau of L aboratories in Tampa, w herehemag g lutination-inhibi tion (HI ), I g M EL I SA, plaque reduc tion neutralization tests (PR NT), polymera se chain rea ction (PCR), and virus isolation tests are performed to de tect antibodies and antig en to SLEV, WNV, EEEV, and Hig hlands J virus (HJV). Each w eek, pa rticipating ag encie s rec eived f acsimile or elec tronic copie s of the ser ologic al and vira l isolation t est results for the ir submissions of that w e e k. Combin e d r e su lts fr om all p artic ipatin g c ou nti e s a rea lso pr ov ide d, if reque sted. These combined re sults are a lso distribut ed to ea ch mosquito control prog ram direc tor and to all CHDs in the state. TheFDO H re ports the wee kly serolog ic data to the local ag ency

but does not rec ommend any specific course s of ac tion relative to vec tor control. Ac tive surveillancefor mosquito-borne disease is non-e x istent in mostFlorida counties. Whil e the F DOH Division of Environmenta l Health conduc ts surveillance for a rboviral ence phalitis in hum ans, the F DOH CHD D irec tor is responsible for issuing loca l Mo sq uito- bo rn e Il lne ss A dv iso rie s and Al e rts fo r WN , SL E, or EE E. Th e loc a l mo sq uit o control ag ency

should be consulted prior to the issuanc e of a Mo sq uito- bo rn e Il lne ss Advisory or

Al e rt since in addition to being a “f irst responder ” the mosquito control a g e nc y is u su a lly

thec oll e c tor

of a ll l oc a l su rv e ill anc e data . U nf ortun a te ly , th is communication does not alway s happen. In some counties ther e is a long -standing communication problem that unde rmines the loca l abilityto respond to episodes of incre ased e pidemic risk. Sup ple me ntal su rv e ill a nc e data arepr ov ide d b y

theF DA CS B ur e au o f D ia g no sti c L aboratories in Kissimmee, which tests veterinarian- submitt ed blood samples fr om horses and other domestic animals for antibodies to WNV, EEEV, and VEEV and other ag ents. These data a

re f reque ntly of lesser public health value beca

use the number

ofC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 139

submissi ons is ge nera lly

too low to adequate ly

sample any

particula r loca lityand data

are g ener ally reported long afte r infec tion or onset dates. L ee County Mosquito C ontrol Di stric t pe rf

orms i ts o wnte sti ng on se nti ne l c hic ke n s e ra c oll e c te d b y

its pr og ram, althoug h samples also ar e sent to the F DOH B ureau of L aboratories in Tampa. O ther c ou nti e s a nddis tric ts o f the state a lso c oll e c t se ro log ic a l sampl e s f ro m w ildbir ds to monitor arbovirus ac tivity
. Since 2002, Florida Ag riculture and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Public Health Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center (PHEREC) has conduc ted a cooper ative mosquito and wild bird surveillanceprog ram with Oka loosa, Santa Rosa, North Walton, and Washington Counties in northwest Florida. All serolog ical samples fr om this pr og ram arepr oc e sse d b y theF DO H L abo ratory

in T a mpa . T he F DO H a lso monitors Florida F ish and Wil dlife Conservation Com mission wil d bird mortality data a s a passive indicator of WNV transmission. For mosquito-borne diseases othe r than WN, SLE, HJ, and EEE, surveillanceis entirely restric ted to the monitoring of human ca ses by public health ag encie s. 

### 8. 5 GENERAL APPROACHES TO SURV EI LLANCE OF ENCEPHALI TI S On e of theprinc ipal g oa ls o f m os t arb ov irus su rv e ill a nc e pr og rams i s to a nti c ipate circ umstances c onducive to the a ppear anceof diseasein humans befor e this occur s (or at le a st b e fo rema ny

c a se s o f d ise a se aresu sp e c te d o r d ia g no se d) . Fro m th is p e rs pe c tiv e , it is p os sib le to g ro up a ll s urve ill a nc e me tho ds or app ro a c he s in to t wo br oa d c a te g orie s: predic tive fac tors and transmissi on monitors. I deally , an integ rate d surveillanceprog ram (Day and L ewis 1992) will incorpor ate one or more c omponents from ea ch categ ory . I nteg rate d prog rams tend to havebetter information at hand to g uide their de cisions than is the case for morelimit ed surve illance pr og rams. Predictive fa ctors ar e not direc tly linked to virus transmission pe r se bu t have so me indirect c orre lation or relationship t o virus transmission. Transmission moni tors are more likely

to influence decision-making by public health ag encie s, since they provide data that sug g est imminent – not future – risk. Predictive f actor s that may

be monitored a s p art of a dis e a se su rv e ill a nc e pr og ram in c lud e thefo llo wi ng :

• Pop ulatio n d e ns ity

of po te nti a l ve c tor

sp e c ie s

• Vec tor population dy namics and a g e structur e

• Re c e nt andlon g -t e rm patte rn s o f r a inf

a ll andoth e r w e a the r p arame te rs (Thesenot only

aff ect ve ctor number s but also can influe nce ve ctor behavior , vector

population ag e structur e, and the repr oductive succ ess of verte brate hosts of the virus.)

• I mmu no log ic a l st a tus of wi ld- c aug ht v e rt e br a te ho stsC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 140

• Pr e va le nc e of

inf e c te d mo sq uit oe s infi e ld s a mpl e s ( F ie ld i nf e c tio n r a te s in mosquitoes)

• Vi ru s a c tiv ity

in the pr e c e din g y e ar o r i n a dja c e nt s urve ill a nc e re g ion s Data on the immunological status of w ild vertebrates, such as birds, may provide a direc t me a su reof

vir us tr a ns mis sio n u nd e r thr e e c on dition s: 1) serolog ical tests ar e performed that are diag nostic of re cent infe ctions 2) blood samples tested ar e fr om a nestling or hatc hing- y ear bird 3) a se ri e s o f n e g a tiv e se ru m sampl e s p re c e de a po sit ivesa mpl e Wit hout meeting one of the se conditions, it is very difficult to determine when the animal was bitten by

the virus-infe cted mosquito. Consequently , it is notpossible to determine whether transmission occurr ed one month or oney ear ag o. Mosquito infection rate data do not nece ssarily predic t present or

future tr ansmission risk. Even a ssuming an a dequate population sampling sche me (whic h is rare ly achie ved), the detec tion of virus in a mosquito pool (typically 50 fema les from the same spec ies from a spe cific loc ality ) cannot disti ng uish betwee n mosquitoes capable of transmission and those that a

re non- transmitters. The non- transmitters could include individuals that areincompletely

susceptible (pe rhaps with infe ction limit ed to the midg ut), as we ll as potentially

competent ve ctor individuals who have been inf ecte d too rec ently

to have develope d salivary

g land infec tions. Cl imatic fac tors aff ecting mosquito l ong evity may prec lude many

of the latter

from surviving to an ag e whe n transmission will occur. Unfortunately , mosquito i nfec tion rates calculated by assay of pooled mosquitoes are u s u al l y as s u m ed t o b e f

arm o re p re ci s e t h an ca n b e j u s t i fi ed
. S ee m i n gl y l ar ge differ ence s in calculated infec tion rates ar e g ener ally statistically

identical, since such g roup-testing inhere ntly

cre ates e x treme c onfidenc e limits t hat can only be over come by te sti ng muc h la

rg e r m os qu ito sa mpl e s th a n th os e g e ne rally pr oc e sse d. Th e e xtre me abundanc e and mobility

of Cx. nigripalpus in Florida a lso has implications for the use of mosquito i nfec tion rates as a primary surveillancetool for WNV and SLEV. The SLEV infec tion rates ra

rely exceede d 1:1000 in Cx. nigripalpus du ri ng the19 90 e pid e mic in I ndian River County

(Shroy er 1991)
. Th e fo llo wi ng me tho ds arevir us tr a ns mis sio n mo nit or s:

• Re g ula

r s e ro log ic a l te sti ng of

se nti ne l ve rt e br a te s maint a ine d inha bit a ts app ro priate fo r s a mpl ing thetarg e t ve c tor mos qu ito sp e c ie s

• I so latio n o f the vir

us fr om w ildor

se nti ne l ve rt e br a te s

• Monitoring human c ases of arboviral disease ( i.e. , human sentinels)C hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 141

The last option is not acce ptable as a primary arbovirus surveillance tool, y et it is often the def ault method employ ed bec ause r esourc es (or interests) will not support a more compre hensive surve illance pr og ram. Clinical sy mptoms of mostarboviral diseases a re n o n - s p e c if

ic a n d , u n le s s a le rte dto th e p o s s ib il ity , lo c a l p h y s ic ian s o f te n f a il to r e c o g n iz e the initial human case s in an outbrea k. As noted pre viously , retrospe ctive analy sis of arbovirus e pidemics provides e x amples in which a substantial proportion of all human case s wereactua lly

infec ted bef

ore the index case wa s identified. When the g oal of a

rbovirus surve illance is to provide an early warning during times of elevated risk for dise ase in humans, the surveillance sy stem will y ield one of thre e po ssi bleou tc ome s: I deally , the surveillanc e sy stem will detect a pe riod of risk in advance of the appe arance of disease . This outcome not only provides an opportunityto initi ate pr eventive and e me rg e nc y

c on tr ol p ro c e du re s b ut also pr ov ide s ti me to ale rt theme dic a l c ommun ity

to rec og nize potential human case s that might not otherwise be re cog nized as mosquitobo rn e dis e a se . U nf

ortun a te ly , s urve ill a nc e sy ste ms f re qu e ntl y fail i n e ith e r o f t wo way s. Due to sampling err or, data may fail to sug g est an imminent risk, when in fa ct an ou tbr e ak o f d ise a se is a

bo ut t o o c c ur . In th is f

a lse -n e g a tiv e sc e na

ri o, there sp on sib le ag ency is caug ht off g uard by

the virus. The a

ppear ancethat virus activity is at a low level can sometimes foster a false se nse of se curity
. Surveillance data may

instead sug g est the imminent occurr enceof a disea se outbrea k, when in fa ct one will not materia liz e. This fa lse-positive outcome sometimes provoke s char g es that the re sponsible ag ency is “crying w olf” and that surveillanceactivities area waste of time. I n addition to the obvious potential for endang ering public health, either type of f ailure can se riously

jeopar dize local support for surve illance pr og rams and pe rsonnel. Responsible public health ag encie s should probably attempt to err on the conservative side in issuing public ale rts when f ield data indicate that incre ased a rboviral virus transmission to humans is l ikely to occur
. I n their ef forts to establish the best ar bovirus surveillanceprog ram possible, ag encie s sometimes fail to rec og nize that there is no sing le, universa lly applicable , superior surveillancemethod. I nteg rate d strateg ies of ar bovirus surveillancefor pr ediction of dis e a se ou tbr e aks arele a st l ike ly to f a il, a nddif

fe re nt a g e nc ie s c on c e rn e d w iththesa me virus may be complete ly

justified in following diff ere nt strateg ies in their surveillanc e prog rams. Hea vily -populated ur

ban re g ions will gene rally requirediffer ent surveillanc e strate g ies than pre dominantly

rura l ones. Rural-oriented prog rams ofte n contend with extensive natura l or ag ricultural we tlands, as well as a smaller human population ( i.e. , smaller tax base to provide operating f unds). Even w hen conc erne d with the same disea se, diffe rentC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 142

local ag encie s must deal with differing te rrain, mosquit o habitats, human population patte rn s, fi nanc ia l c on str a int s, a ndlog ist ic a l li mit a tio ns on the ir abil ity to e ff e c tiv e ly control vec tor mosquitoes. I t would be inappropriate and dang erous to expect ea ch loca l jurisdiction in Florida to desig n its surveillance pr og ram a long ide ntical lines. No matter w hat spec ific methods ar e employ ed, a loc al ar bovirus surveillanceprog ram ne e ds se ve ral y e ars of

op e ratio n to a c c umu late a ba se lin e su rv e ill a nc e data se t th a t is useful for assessing epidemic risk in that ge og raphic are a. Surveillanc e prog rams can su c c e e d inthelon g ru n o nly to the e xten t th a t th e y

areableto c le arl y

de fi ne re a lis tic surveillanceg oals that areappropriate for the available control and response resour ces. Th e or g a nizatio na l st

ru c tur e of theloc a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol o ff ic e a ndits re latio ns hip to the CHD (whic h has re sponsibili ty for issuing a Mosquito-borne Illness Adv isory or Al e rt) a rea lso imp orta nt c on sid e ratio ns . Wh e rea c tiv e su rv e ill a nc e is c on du c te d lo c a lly by an indepe ndent mosquito control district, it i s espec ially important to have pre

established lines of c ommunication to the CHD. Otherwise , it will l ikely prove impossibl e to ef

fec tively motivate the CHD to issue a medic al alert when surve illance data c learly

war rant one
. 

### 8 . 6 OV ERV I EW O F CURRE NT SU RV EI LL ANCE MET HO DS FOR ENCEP HALIT IS As noted, surve illance of

human ca ses of mosquito-borne dise ase in F lorida is done by the state F DOH Division of Environmenta l Health in Tallaha ssee and is depende nt upon data pr ovided by

individual phy sicians and CHDs. Surve illance of equine c ases of

EEE and WN is conducted by

the State Vete rinarian' s Offic e and the FDA CS Bureau of Di a g no sti c s L abo ratorie s inKi ssi mme e . T he se data arema de a vaila

bleto l oc a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams o n a

we e kly ba sis . H ow e ve r, se ro log ic te sti ng fo r a rb ov irus e s is inf re qu e ntl y do ne fo r p a tie nts a nda nim a ls w ithg e ne ralize d s y mpt oms c on sis te nt w ith mild forms of WN, SL E or EEE, unle ss there ha s alrea dy been a rec ent medica l alert notify ing loc al phy sicians of the possibilityof loca l transmission. This s ituation highlig hts another r eason w hy human and animal case surveillanceg ener ally provide data too late to a llow implementation of a meaningf ul vector c ontrol intervention. Aside fr om case surveillance , other forms of mosquito-borne disease surveillance c ur re ntl y us e d inF lorida

inc lud e :

• Mo nit oring tr a ns mis sio n o f WN V, SLEV , andEE EV to s e nti ne l bi rd s ( e.g ., chicke ns). In 1990, data f rom sentinel chicke n flocks dete cted the imminent arrival of F lorida' s most ex tensive SLE epidemic be fore the appe arance of

the human index case.

• Mo nit oring so me ind e x of v e c tor po pu latio n d e ns ity , u su a lly by se le c tiv e ly tr ap p i n g s o m e f

r a c t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n t h a ti s a c t i v e l y f l y i n g a tn i g h t
. InC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 143 many case s, this type of surveillance is performed primarily to assess the nee d for insec ticide applications to reduce annoy anceof biting mosquito populations.

• Monitoring and testing of dead bir ds for WNV infec tion.

• Mo nit oring qu a lit a tiv e ind ic e s o f r e pr e se ntativ e ve c tor po pu latio ns to t

ra c k ( in rea l-time) the phy siologica l status, blood-feeding activity , ovipositi on, and ph y sio log ic a l a g e of

loc a l mo sq uit oe s.

• Serolog ic sampling of wild verte brate s for e vidence of past ar boviral infec tion wi th an a rb ov irus ( e.g. , WNV, SL EV, or EEE V).

• L abo ratory

te sti ng of po pu latio n s a mpl e s o f p ote nti a l ve c tor sp e c ie s to determine the pre senceor abse nce of virus. The fir st three methods of e ncephalitis surveillancearecommonly employ ed in Florida. Th e la st thr e e me tho ds aree mpl oy e d e ith e r e xpe ri me ntally or in l imi te d a

re a s, us ua lly with active pa

rticipation by

university

entomologists or ve ctor spec ialists. Concerning the role and limit ations of deve loping molec ular tec hnologie s, innovative molecular technolog ies arebeing applied to many diag nostic problems in medicine and have a pplication to the highly

specia liz ed nee ds of those monitoring mosquito-borne diseases. Poly mera se chain rea ction (PCR)-based diag nostic tests, in particular, a re attrac tive candidates for inc rea sing the speed and, in some case s the ac cura cy , of de te c tin g thepr e se nc e of

a n a rb ov irus . T he PCR te c hn olo g y ha s b e e n f

ie ld- te ste d f

or a ll of the major N orth Americ an ar boviruses and ha s proven e x ceptionally eff icient for antig en-c apture type analy ses on avian and mammalian tissues and on mosquito pools. Analytical problems assoc iated with fa lse-positive tests that measure incomplete sec tions of viral RNA, r ather

than live virus, re main an important hurdle that needs to be overc ome bef

ore PCR will become a c omplete surveillanc e tool. Th e reis an u nf

ortun a te te nd e nc y

to v ie w this we lc omede ve lop me nt o f m ole c ula r t oo ls a s a “ ma g ic bu lle t” that w ill e lim inate thene e d f or oth e r f orms o f e nc e ph a lit is su rv e ill a nc e , p artic ula

rl y themon ito ri ng of

vir us tr a ns mis sio n to se nti ne l a nim a ls. Ye t, no matter how use ful, these tec hniques areonly new virolog ic tools, not whollynew app ro a c he s to arb ov irus su rv e ill a nc e . T he mon ito ri ng of inf e c tio n r ate s inmos qu ito population samples addre sses a fundamentally differ ent part of the virus transmission cy cle than doe s monitoring of virus transmissi on to sentinel chicke ns, reg ardle ss of the laboratory

methods employ ed to determine whether or not mosquitoes are inf ecte d.


### 8. 7 CONTROL OF DI SEASE E PI DEMICS When an epidemic of

mosquito-borne diseaseis imm inent or in prog ress, the primary means of dise ase c ontrol are : 1) ag g ressive insec ticidal treatment of suspect ve ctor populations, including a eria l applications and 2) public notific ation and educ ation of theC hapt er 8: D i s eas e Sur vei l l anc e, O ut br eak s and C ont rol Page 144

me dic a l c ommun ity

a ndtheg e ne ral pu bli c . N oti fi c a tio n o f the me dic a l c ommun ity e nh a nc e s th e lik e lih oo d o f p ro pe r c lin ic a l di a g no sis of su sp e c te d c a se s a ndmake s it po ssi bleto f

oll ow thec ou rs e of

thee pid e mic . T his inf

ormatio n c a n b e us e fu l in establishing w hen risk of f urther tr ansmission has declined and when e merg ency surveillanceand contr ol measure s can beterminated. While notification of the public of an impending epidemic c an g ener ate anx iety if treated sensationally

by news media , surveillancepersonne l have an obligation to advise the population -- in re alistic terms -- of the ir be st a sse ssm e nt o f the situatio n andthepu bli c he a lthri sk . T he ov e rr idi ng be ne fi t of public notification is that citizens can be stimulated to take persona l protective measure s, such as re ducing exposure to mosquit o bites by use of r epellents, by

wea ring protec tive clothing, or

by modify ing outdoor

activity . The be nefit of public notification is probably

most pronounced in situations whereinsecticidal c ontrol of the vec tor mos qu ito is m os t di ff

ic ult a ndine ff e c tual ( e.g. , c on tr ol o f S LEV or WNV ve c tor s) . It is believed that ag g ressive public notification prior to the 1990 SLE epidemic in Indian River County

substantially

reduc ed the number

of human c ases. 

### 8. 8 REFERENCES AND GENER AL READ ING Carson, P.J ., P. Konewko, K.S. Wold et al . 2006. L ong -term outcome s of WNV infec tion. Clini cal Infec tious Diseases 43: 723-730. Day , J.F . andL .M . St ark . 1 99 6. Tr a ns mis sio n p a tte rn s o f S t. Lou is e nc e ph a lit is and ea stern equine ence phalitis viruses in Florida: 1978-1993. Journal of Medical Entomology 33: 132-139. Day , J.F . andA. L . L e wi s. 19 92 . A n in te g rate d a pp ro a c h to St. L ou is e nc e ph a lit is surveillancein I ndian River County , Florida
. Fl or ida J ou rn al o f P ub licHe alt

h 4: 12-16. Shroy er, D .A. 1991. The 1990 F lorida epide mic of St. L ouis ence phalitis: vi rus infec tion rates in Culex nigripalpus
. Journal of the Florida Mosquito Cont rol Association 62: 69-71. St. Louis Ence

phalitis in Florida . 1 96 9. F lorida State B oa

rdof He a lth Monog raph Series No. 12. Jacksonville, Florida. Villari, P., A. Spielman, N. Komar, M. McD owell and R.E. Timperi. 1995. The economic bur den imposed by a re sidual case of ea stern enc ephalitis. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hy giene 52: 8-13. Wil son, J .H., H.L . Rubin, T.J . L ane and E.P.J . Gibbs. 1986. A survey of ea stern equine e ncephalomy elitis in Florida horses: Prevalence , economic impac t, and manag ement pra ctice, 1982- 1983. Preve ntative Vete rinary Medic ine 4: 261-271.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 145 

## Ch ap ter 9 MOS QU I TO C ON TR OL B EN EFI TS AN D R I S KS

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : D r. L a rry H ri b a r a nd D ana B r y an 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r s : A l e x C or de r o a nd D r . Sc ot tT ay l or
Summ ary In Florida, both mosquito control and t he protec tion of environme ntally sensitive habitats are legislati velymandated. Cle ar ly, m od

e rn mo sq uito c on tro l po se s so me e nv iro nm e nta l ri sk s, yet it just as obviously provides bene fits. Publi c health protec tion, im prov e d h um an c om

fort fr om mo sq uito a nn oy an c e , a nd e c on om ic payback are the most obvious be nefits. Impacts on fish, wil dlife, an d n on -t ar ge t arthr op od s a re so me of t

he ris k s. The re is a lso growi ng c on c e rn ab ou t th e ris k s o f hu ma n e

x po su re to p e sti c ide s in general. These pote ntial impacts to bot h natural communities and to h um an s n e e d to be su

ffi c ie ntl y un de rstoo d to he lp r isk

/be ne fit analysis that can result in inf ormed de cision making. Modern mosquito control methodology dic tates the use of an integrated pest managem ent program, utilizi ng adulticiding, larviciding, and source reduc tion as appropri ate, and incorporating a public education compone nt. Mosquito control ag e nc ie s a nd

e nv iro nm e nta l la nd

ma na ge me nt a ge nc ie s a re required to work together to resolve any controv ersial issues that arise by care

fully weighing the risks and benefits in each situation.


### 9. 1 INTRODUCTION The use of

various che micals to attempt to control pests of humans, cr ops, and animals has bee n documented sinc e anc ient times. Homer desc ribed how Ody sseus fumig ated a

house with burning sulfur to control pests (Ware1994). The Chinese use d arse nic sulfide to kill insects (Pimentel and L ehman 1993) . The use and suc cess of

chemicals drastically

chang ed with the deve lopment of sy nthetic pesticides a

littl e over

fifty y ear s ag o. The Swiss chemist Paul Müller discovere d the insecticida l properties of the org anochlorine pesticide dic hlorodipheny l-trichloroe thane ( DDT), and the United States De partment of A g riculture (USDA) la

boratory in Orlando de veloped it for f ield use by

the armed servic es. An ar senic c ompound (Paris g ree n) wa s used in Florida for larval control during the 1960s.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 146 These and many

other synthetic pesticides we re de veloped by scientists for the control of insec ts and other pe sts in many situations in bot h public health and ag riculture. In the ea

rly y ear s their ef

fec tiveness, just like that of antibiotics, was so dr a matic that th e ir

de ve lop me nt w a s c on sid e re d mi ra c ulo us . A s a re su lt, the se c he mic a ls w e rewi de ly

a ndof te n in dis c ri min a te ly

app lie d. Whil e so me pe op le questioned such a

widespre ad use of

pesticides, many

more pe ople praised it. At that time, resea

rch ha d not y et documente d the environme ntal, ecolog ical, or hu ma n h a zar ds of

the se mate ri a ls. What pe op le didkn ow thr ou g ho ut the wo rl d was that c hemical c ontrol of mosquitoes and other pe sts significantly reduc ed hu ma n il lne ss andde a th andg re a tly imp ro ve d h uman c omf

ort. Th e ri sk s in vo lve d w ithpe sti c ideus e we reno t w ide ly qu e sti on e d u nti l th e e arl y 1960s when Rac hel Carson published Silent Spring (Carson 1962)
. Although the sc ie nc e wa s c on tr ov e rs ia l ( Ed wa rd s 2 00 2) , th is p ub lic a tio n in c re a se d p ub lic a wa re ne ss o f i ssu e s su c h a s: 1) acute and chr onic pesticide impac ts to humans, wildli fe, and other nontarg et spec ies 2) the per sistence of

certain pesticides in the envir onment 3) the transport of pesticides outside tar g et ar eas, w hich can causeunintended en v i ro n m en t al d am age Mosquito control contributes to some of these e nvironmental problems, but compar ed to ag ricultural methods and materia ls, mosquit o control pesticides a re ap p l i e da tl o w e r

d o s a g e s a n di n s m a l l e r

a m o u n t s ( Ly o n a n dS t e e l e 1 9 9 8 )
. In Florida , ag riculture and lawn ca re a re be lieved to re prese nt much g reater potential impacts to the aquatic environment than doe s mosquito control (Hushon 2006). Mosquito control pesticides arereg ulated fe dera lly by the U.S. Environmental Pr ote c tio n A g e nc y

(E PA) wh ic h is re sp on sib le fo r a uth orizin g la

be ls f or a llo wa ble chemicals. The leg al authority for mosquito control in Florida is Chapter 388 Florida Statues (F.S.). Mosquito control is reg ulated by the Florida Depa

rtment of Ag ri c ultur e a ndCon su me r S e rv ic e s ( F DA CS) , w hic h d e sig nate s w hic h c he mic a ls arepermitted for

use. F DACS also oversee s Florida mosquito control oper ations by makin g c e rt a in that th e y

c omp ly wi th F lorida

Statut e s a nda ny

app ro priate ru le s. The Unive rsity

of F lorida’s (U F) Bur eau of Economic and Business Rese arc h (2 00 4) e sti mate s th a t f

ro m 19 00 to 2 00 0 F lorida ' s p op ulatio n in c re a se d b y a lmo st 3,000%. Ther e is littl e doubt that implementation of both phy sical and c hemical mosquito control techniques aide d in the development and utiliz ation of ar eas that p r e v i o u s l y w e r e n o tc o n s i d e r e da c c e p t ab l e f o r h u m a n h ab i t a t i o n . C e rt a i n l y, Fl o ri d a's ex p l o s i v e gr o wt h i n co as t al ar ea s af t erW o rl dW arI I

wa s d u e i n l ar ge part to the use of

sy nthetic pesticides and phy sical methods to control mosquitoes.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 147 Con tr ov e rs y

of te n a c c omp a nie s mo sq uit o c on tr ol b e c aus e thec he mic a ls fr e qu e ntl y

areapp lie d inde ve lop e d a re a s, a ndso me pe op le arec on c e rn e d w ith their own e x posure. Tr eatment a lso occurs in natural ar eas, inc luding pr otected pu bli c la nd s, a ndso me pe op le arec on c e rn e d a bo ut e ff e c ts o n w ild lif

e . It is vit a lly important that the risks and bene fits of mosquito control practice s are analy zed scientifica lly

so that the control dec isions can be madewith a g ood understanding of their e ffe cts. Prior to the early

1980s, mosquito control practice s werequestioned only when obvious, adverseeff

ects on wildlife we re obse rved ( e.g., Patt e r s o n 2 0 0 4 )
. We now better

appre ciate the complex int err elationships of org anisms within an e c os y ste m. F or

ins ta nc e , th e fo odof

ma ny mari ne or g a nis ms c on sis ts o f s ma ll arthropods or

org anisms that are simil ar in size to mosquit o larva e, and suc h or g a nis ms d if

fe r g re a tly

in the ir su sc e pti bil ity

to p e sti c ide s ( Curtis a ndPr of e ta 1993). Some org anisms may be more sensitive to pesticides than mosquitoes. I mpacting any

portion of this food web may aff ect other parts or e ven the e ntire web. Thecurr ent lack of

knowledg e conc erning the biology of many non-targ et specie s and their c ommunityfunctions furthe r complicates the problem of risk/benef

it analy sis. Mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ra c tic e s u su a lly fo c us on themon ito ri ng of mos qu ito populations with li ttle or no routine monitoring of non-tar g et spec ies. The difficulty and cost of monitoring non-targ et ef fec ts in the natural envir onment has imp e de d th is type of

wo rk . I de a lly , lo ng -t e rm g oa ls f or no n- targ e t a sse ssm e nts are : 1. I de nti fy

ke y no n- targ e t in dic a tor

sp e c ie s to mon ito r o n a

ro uti ne ba sis 2. Es ta bli shins e c tic ideimp a c t th re sh old s f or the se ind ic a tor

sp e c ie s 3. Deve lop standardized methodolog ies for monitoring post-application insecticide r esidues Moreove r, mosquito control prog rams must place more e mphasis on non-che mical te c hn iqu e s to c on tr ol m os qu ito e s inor de r t o r e du c e no n- targ e t impa c ts. 

### 9 . 2 I NT E G RA T E D P E S T MA NA G E ME NT ( I P M) It is imp ortant that mo sq uit o c on tr ol a g e nc ie s maint a in a br oa d s e le c tio n o f t oo ls, bo th c he mic a l a ndno n- c he mic a l, t o u se in m a na g ing mos qu ito po pu latio ns in Florida . It is also important that the potential impacts to both natural communities and to humans ar e under stood sufficiently to help in risk/benefit ana ly sis that can re su lt i n in fo rm e d d e c isi on -m akin g . F or themos t pa

rt , s inc e 19 49 , mo sq uit o a g e nc y a c tiv iti e s h a ve be e n d ir e c te d p ri mari ly tow ard s n uis a nc e mos qu ito e s, tho se which ar e of e conomic importanc e but do not transmit diseases to humans. Howeve r, mosquito-borne disea ses ar e on the rise worldwide and sever al disease s arethreats to publi c health and animal hea lth in Florida. These diseases inc ludeC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 148 St. L ou is e nc e ph a lit is, e a ste rne qu inee nc e ph a lit is, Hi g hland s J en c e ph a lit is, Wes t Ni le e nc e ph a lit is, a ndCa lif ornia g ro up e nc e ph a lit is ( i.e., Key stone and Trivitattus). The most eff

ective and environmenta lly sound pest control prog rams ar e base d on a combination of me thods including sourc e re duction, chemical control, and bio log ic a l c on tr ol ( Ros e 20 01 ). Us ing a c omb inatio n o f the se te c hn iqu e s is te rm e d Inte g rate d Pe st M a na g e me nt ( I PM) . IPM h a s b e e n d e ve lop e d to encour ag e a balance d usag e of c ultural and insec ticidal methodologie s and habitat manipulations in order to minimiz e adve rse e nvironmental impacts. To e ff e c tiv e ly us e I PM, it i s n e c e ssa

ry to h a ve a tho ro ug h u nd e rs ta nd ing of theba sic biology of the pe st species and the many fac tors that influencetheir density
. B e c aus e of

ra pidmos qu ito po pu latio n r e du c tio n ande c on omi c c on sid e ratio ns , many mosquito control prog rams use c hemical a pplications as their primary c on tr ol m e tho d. A p ro g ram th a t r e lie s so le ly on c he mic a l c on tr ol i s n ot an IPM prog ram. While most components of an IPM progr am have some level of environmenta l risk, the overa ll risks are likely to be less than a pr og ram that re lies so le ly on c he mic a l c on tr ol, wh ic h mi g ht c aus e un de sir ableno n- targ e t mo rt a lity a ndc on tribu te to c he mic a l r e sis ta nc e in m os qu ito e s. 

### 9 . 3 MOS QUI TO CO NTR OL I NS ECT I CI DES : P AS T A ND P RES ENT The synthetic pesticides use d for mosquito control over the y ear s have va

ried g re a tly in s truc tur e , to xici ty , p e rs ist e nc e , ande nv ir on me ntal impa c t. T he se ch em i ca l s i n cl u d e t h e f

o l l o wi n g: Organochlorine pesticides areno longe r used f or mosquito control in Florida, althoug h methox y chlor wa s labeled f or use until its cance llation in 2003 (Edwards 20 04 ). Som e or g a no c hlo ri ne s th a t w e refo rm e rl y us e d in c lud e d D DT , B HC , chlordane, hepta chlor, aldrin, and dieldrin. Or g anochlorines arerelativelynonsoluble in water and very persistent in soils. Also, they arelipophili c, i.e ., they bioacc umulate in fat and other lipids. L arg ely , it was these lipophilic properties that r e su lte d inor g a no c hlo ri ne s n o lo ng e r b e ing la be le d f or us e in the U. S. T he se bans ar e still actively

criticized by

some ( e.g ., Tren and Bate 2000, B ailey 2002, Ed wa rd s 2 00 4) . In s pit e of

c a nc e llatio n o f all u se s o f the se c he mic a ls i n th e U. S. by theEPAbe tw e e n 1 97 3 and19 88 (Wa re19 94 ), ma ny

so ils a ndri ve rs aresti ll c on ta min a te d w ithre sid ue s o f the mos t pe rs ist e nt o f the se c omp ou nd s ( i.e ., DDT, e ndri n, die ldrin) (Wh ite a ndKry nit sky 19 86 ), a ndthe y

c on tin ue to b e de te c te d in wildlife (Clark et al
. 1 9 9 5 , S p ar l i n g e t al
. 2001). The total c oncentr ation of DDT re sid ue s intheU. S. a

pp e ars to b e de c lin ing (N ow e ll e t al
. 1999). Org anochlorines c on tin ue to b e us e d f

or a g ri c ultur a l a ndmos qu ito c on tr ol i n d e ve lop ing c ou ntrie s. Organoph osph ates ( OP ). Although O Ps are g ener ally less persistent than org anochlorines, some have highe r ac ute tox icities for mammals and othe rC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 149 org anisms (Pimentel and L ehman 1993) . Currently rec ommended OP compounds arethe adulticides malathion (Fy fanon ), nale d (Dibrom ), and the larvicide ® ® te me ph os (Abate ). Th e se c omp ou nd s h a ve re lativ e ly low ma mma lian to xici ty ® and most usually

brea k down ra pidly ; however , some intermediate brea kdown products ar e also toxi c. Ac cidental discha rg e of or g anophosphorus insec ticides into aquatic envir onments has caused fish kills, and some of the OP compounds aretoxic to m ic ro c ru sta c e a ns su c h a s Da ph nia spp. (WHO 1986a). F enthion (B a yte x ) i s n o lo ng e r u se d f or mos qu ito c on tr ol i n th e U. S. ® P yrethroids. Pyrethroid insec ticides arebased on the chemical structure of a g roup of naturally

occur ring compounds, py

rethrums, de rived fr om a flowe r native to Africa. Produc ts ex trac ted from theseflower s have be en used f or thousands of y ear s and ar e still used today but are extremely

expensive. Artificially

cre ated py

rethroids used today

in Florida f

or mosquito control are resmethrin, permethrin, and sumethrin. Pyrethroids a re morepersistent than n at u ra l p y re t h ru m s an di n a f

ew ca s es ar e m o re p er s i s t en tt h an OP s , al t h o u gh resmethrin deg rade s rapidly in the environment (WHO 1989) . Pyrethroids a re br oa d- sp e c trum t oxic a nts that areve ry toxic to f ish , a qu a tic or g a nis ms, a ndmos t oth e r c old -b loo de d anim a ls. Du e to the ir hig h andbr oa d r a ng e of

toxic ity to insects, they

may aff ect be nefic ial specie s, thereby lessening natura l controls, and, for some pe sts, may

actua lly incre ase the need f

or further c hemical c ontrol (E dw ard s 1 99 3) . H ow e ve r, to d a te , a ne e d f or inc re a se d c he mic a l c on tr ol b e c aus e of py rethroid use for mosquito control has not bee n demonstrated. Py rethroids exhibi t low tox icity

to birds and mammals (EPA 2002). Carbam ates. Methy l car bamates a re r elated c hemically

to phy sostigmine, a natura lly -occ urring alkaloid isolated fr om the cala bar be an (WHO 1986b). N o car bamates a re c urre ntly

used for mosquito control in Florida, althoug h propoxur has bee n used. Carbamates ar e broa d-spec trum, tend to be more pe rsistent than or g a no ph os ph ate s inso il, a ndthu s h a ve thepo te nti a l f or c on sid e ra

ble e nv ir on me ntal impa c t ( Ed wa rd s 1 99 3) . H ow e ve r, data e xist th a t su g g e st car bamates a re liable to deg radation by soil mi croor g anisms (WHO 1986b). Propox ur is considere d to be moderately tox ic to mammals (WHO 1986b). Insect G rowth Regulators (IG R). I GRs interfer e with insect de velopment typically resulting in larval or pupal mortality . For more than thirty

y ear s, the ins e c t g ro wth r e g ulator

me tho pr e ne , A lto sid , h a s b e e n a wi de ly us e d mo sq uit o ®, larv ic idein F lorida

a nde lse wh e rein the wo rl d. Me tho pr e ne is s pe c if ic to immature insect larvae, e specia lly dipterans, whic h include mosquitoes. Methoprenehas extremely low mammalian tox icity . Diflubenzuron (Dimilin ), a ® c hitin i nh ibi tor , h a s mu c h b ro a de r n on -t arg e t impa c ts than me tho pr e ne , e sp e c ia lly on marine and fre shwater arthropods suc h as shrimp and c rabs. The ref ore, Dimilin i s sever ely

restric ted to certain sites and is not widely used. Biologi cals. Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is ( Bt i ) and B. sphaericus ( Bs ) ar e bo th b a c te ri a l la

rv ic ide s ( a c tin g a s st oma c h p ois on s) that arequ ite sp e c if ic toC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 150 mosquito l arva e and a

few other a quatic dipterans. Bt i is used worldwide. Bs is more re cently

labeled and is onlyeff

ective in f reshwater ha

bitats. Bs ha s a na rr ow e r h os t r a ng e than d oe s Bt i (B auman e t al
. 1991). Bs can beused in wate r of much lowe r quality

than can Bt i and can actua lly improve water qua lityby su pp re ssi ng a lg a l g ro wth ( Sila panu nataku l e t al
. 19 83 , Su a ndMu lla 19 99 ). B oth arenon-tox ic to mammals and exhibitfew or no non-tar g et ef fec ts (WHO 1999, Ware 1994, B oisvert and B oisvert 2000). Surf ace film s. Pe tr ole um d ist ill a te s ( i.e ., oil s) areus e d a s p up a c ide s, to s uf fo c a te mosquitoes prior to adult emerg ence . These oils can be toxi c to pre datory He mip te ra

a ndCol e op te ra , a s w e ll a s sh e e ps he a d mi nn ow s, bu t areno t to xic t o rotifer s and some protozoa (Mulla and Dar wazeh 1981; Tietze et al . 1993, 1995). Monomolecular f

ilms, alcohol ethox y lated surf actants, are use d as larvic ides and pupacide s. They

disrupt surfac e tension and c ause la rvaeand pupaeto drown. Mo no mol e c ula

r f ilm s c ur re ntl y arebe ing e va luate d inF lorida re g ard ing the ir toxic ity to n on -t arg e t in se c ts i n s a lt w a te r m ars h h abit a t. M on omo le c ula r f ilm s arenot as eff

icac ious when exposed to high winds (N ay ar and Ali 2003).


### 9. 4 BENEF IT S OF MOSQUITO CONTROL Br oadly speaking , the bene fits of mosquito control can be divided into three classes: nuisanc e bene fits, economic be nefits, and public he alth benef its. Nuisancebenef

its include relief

to people ar ound homes or in par ks and re c re a tio na l are a s. Nu isanc e be ne fi ts c a n e ve n b e sa id t o e xten d to pe ts andto wildlife. Economic be nefits include incr ease d rea l estate va lues, enhanced tourism and related business interests, or inc rea sed livestock or poultry pr od uc tio n. Pub lic he a lthbe ne fi ts i nc lud e there du c tio n o f i nf e c tio us dis e a se a g e nts
. 9.4.1 Nuisan ce Be nefi ts A b e ne fi t of

mos qu ito c on tr ol that ha s g re a tly c on tribu te d to F lorida ' s g ro wth is thetr e me nd ou s p ro g re ss m a de in c on tr oll ing pe sti fe ro us mos qu ito sp e c ie s, e sp e c ia lly tho se that arefo un d inc oa sta l ma rs he s. Al tho ug h many

of the se pe st mosquitoes do not present a thre at of disea se transmission to humans, they sig nif ic a ntl y a ff e c t hu ma n c omf

ort. P ri or to the a dv e nt o f o rg a nize d mo sq uit o co n tro l i n Fl o ri d a, m o s q u i t o n u mb er s we re s u ch t h atre s i d en t s co u l dn o tgo outdoors afte r dar

k, and many

coasta l towns closed down for the summer sea son (Ha rden 1981) . The influx of an estimated 700-800 pe ople moving to F lorida daily and the f act that much ne w deve lopment occur s near mosquito-producing ha bit a ts p uts inc re a sin g pr e ssu reon mos qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc ie s to ma int a in e ff e c tiv e c on tr ol p ro g rams. The nuisanc e fa ctor to pets also may be conside red important to many people. Vi d eo ev i d en ce ex i s t s t h atm o s q u i t o es ar e s ev er e p es t s o f p u rp l e m ar t i n n es t l i n gs (Hill 1994). The introduc tion of novel viral pathog ens into naïve populations mayC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 151 ha ve imp a c ts ( F ara

jol lahi et al . 2004, Miller et al . 2005). F or example, during the 2001 West Nile virus outbreak in F lorida, 1,106 dea d birds reported to the Florida Depa rtment of He alth wer e found to be infec ted with West Nile virus. The aff ecte d birds comprised 10 or ders and 25 families (B lackmore et al . 2003).
9.4.2 Econom ic Benefits Florida ' s economy

benef its from tourism (almost 84 mi llion vis itors in 2006) which depe nds on the bea ches, f ishing, g olfing , amusement pa rks, and the outdoors in ge nera l. Tourism resulted in $65 billion i n taxable sales in 2006 and supported almost one million jobs for Floridians (V isit Florida 2007). Most of these visitors have little tolerance f or mosquitoes, and it seems re asonable that mosquito control helps many visitors enjoy

their stay and, ther efor e, helps the F lorida e c on omy . Pe rh aps themos t st ri kin g ill us tr a tio n o f the e c on omi c be ne fi ts of controlling mosquitoes is t he cla ssic g raph by Dr. John A. Mulrennan, Sr. showing that for the pe riod 1950-1967, the de cline in ave rag e lig ht trap catch for the fe male saltmarsh mosquito ( Ae de s ta e nio rh

y nc hu s) corr elated w ith increa sing tou ri st e xpe nd itu re s ( B re e la nda ndMu lr e nn a n 1 98 3) . T he dr a matic de c re a se in sa ltm ars h mo sq uit oe s d uring thi s p e ri od , inlarg e me a su redu e to i mpo un dme nt, ditching, and filling of sa lt marshes, fa cilitated the deve lopment of larg e ar eas of coasta l Florida and a g ener al incre ase in tourism (Gaiser 1980, Ha rden 1981, Thomas 1981). Ec on omi c imp a c ts o f m os qu ito -b orne dis e a se s h a ve no t be e n w e ll d oc ume nte d in thepa st, bu t r e c e nt r e se arc h s ug g e sts that a ny ty pe of ve c tor -b ornee pid e mic wi ll have loc al and state wide, dire ct and indire ct ec onomic impacts that may be in the multi-mi llions of dollars. For e x ample, the 1990 SLE epidemic not only cause d considera ble illness (223 confirmed ca ses with 11 deaths), but F lorida saw a 15% decr easein tourism-related r evenue s in the last quarter of the y ear

(Mulrennan 1991). The 2002 West Nile virus (WN) e pidemic was e stimated to have c ost over $20 milli on in L ouisiana alone (Z ohrabian e t al
. 20 04 ). Mo sq uit o c on tr ol p os sib ly de c re a se s th e se imp a c ts b y re du c ing thec hanc e s f

or ou tbr e aks a ndby

he lpi ng to control them whe n they

occur ( e.g., Ru iz et al . 2004). Another e conomic bene fit of mosquito control is increase d worke r produc tivity
. I n outdoor work a

rea s, such as c rop fields, marinas, orcha rds, sawmills, and the construction tra des, produc tivityof work c rew s can f all to near zero in the prese nce of

larg e number s of mosquitoes. A wide c ross-sec tion of domestic animals also bene fit from mosquito control. Data on los s o f m e a t or

dairy pr od uc tio n d ue to m os qu ito a tta c k a redif fi c ult to come by , althoug h older literature re ported losses in milk production of up to 40% and losses in bee f cattle weig ht gain (revie wed in Steelman 1976) . Resear ch conducte d in L ouisiana showed that a combination of mosquito control and imp ro ve d d ie t r e su lte d insig nif ic a nt i nc re a se s inwe ig ht g a in b y be e f c a ttl e (Steelman e t al
. 1972, 1973). The suf focation of cattle by

hordes of mosquitoesC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 152 prior to modern mosquito control wa s documented in ne ws reports and has occur red in re cent times as we ll (Addison and Ritchie 1993). One source estimated an e conomic loss of $61 million dol lars in one y ear due to mosquitoes (Hamer 1985, c ited in Frank e t al
. 1997) Birds and other wildlife may serve as re servoirs f

or mosquito-borne disea ses that can impac t animals of ec onomic importance (USDA 2005). H orses in F lorida ar e at risk from infe ction by

easte rn equine ence phalitis virus and West Nile virus and potentially

from Ve nezuelan equine ence phalitis virus (L ord and Rutledg eConnelly 2006). During the 2001 West Nile virus outbreak in F lorida, 492 horse s wer e conf irmed to have had ac ute West Nile ence phalitis (Blac kmore et al . 2003).
9.4.3 P ubl ic Health Benefits Another important be nefit of mosquito control is the targ eting of mosquitoes that tr a ns mit dis e a se s. Mo sq uit o c on tr ol i s a n impo rt a nt andba sic pu bli c he a lth service(ASTHO 2003) . Since 1978, some public hea lth departments and mosquito control ag encie s throug hout the state haveparticipated in a surve illance pr og ram us ing se nti ne l c hic ke ns to c los e ly mon ito r f

or St. L ou is e nc e ph a lit is (SLE) and e astern e quine enc ephalitis (EEE) vir uses. Arbovirus outbre aks, like the 1990 SLE epidemic ( 223 confirme d case s with 11 deaths) (Mulre nnan 1991) and the 2002 West Nile virus (WN) e pidemic in the United States (4,156 r eporte d c a s e s w i t h 2 8 4 f

a t a l i t i e s ) ( O ’ L e ary et al . 2004) ty pically result in incre ased and targ eted mosquito control to stem the outbrea ks. On a pe rsonal leve l, a survivor of EEE infe ction may

need life time medical support costing into the mill ions of do lla rs (V ill ari e t al
. 1995). L ong -term se quelae of West Nile virus infec tion include abnormalities of motor skills , attention, and executive f unctions, all of which may

neg atively

impact quality

of life and productivity

(Carson e t al
. 2006). Therearealso social justice be nefits to mosquito control. At least three dif fer ent s tu d ie s ( Ku tz e t al
. 2 0 0 3 , Ru iz e t al
. 20 04 , Ri os e t al
. 2006) havesug g ested that thebu rd e n o f m os qu ito -b orne vir a l di se a se s f a lls mor e he a vil y

up on low e r- inc ome re sid e nts a ndmin ority

g ro up c ommun iti e s. 

### 9. 5 COSTS OF MOSQUITO CONTROL 9. 5. 1 Hum an H e alth Co nc e r ns A c on sid e ratio n a sso c iate d w iththeov e rall u se of pe sti c ide s, of

wh ic h mo sq uit o control is a part, is the potential human health risk of pe sticide exposure. I n the last sever al y ear s, more evide nce ha s been e valuated c oncerning the impact on humans from a

half-c entury

of exposure to sy nthetic che micals and other e nv ir on me ntal c on ta min a nts . H uman h e a lthpr ob le ms a sso c iate d w iththee ff e c ts of se ve re , a c utee xpos ur e to o rg a no ph os ph a te pe sti c ide s in c lud e ir re ve rs ibl e neurolog ical def

ects, memory

loss, mood chang es, infertilit y , and disorientation (Savag e e t al
. 1988). Howe ver, he alth eff ects a re g ener ally

attributed to exposureC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 153 to ag ricultural a

pplications to food – not to mosqui to control applications. No clea r evide nce e x ists for adver se ef fec ts on human health fr om long- term exposure to o rg a no ph os ph a te ins e c tic ide s at le ve ls that do no t a ff e c t a c e ty lc ho lin e ste ra se levels (WHO 1986a) . I n fac t, rec ent re sear ch sug g ests that human hea lth risks from mosquito control pesticides ar e low and that risks from WN gr eatly exceed risks from pesticides to human he alth (Peterson e t al
. 2006). I diopathic Environmental Intoleranc e (IEI ) (“ idiopathic” meaning of “unknown orig in”) is the name curr ently applied to a phe nomenon forme rly known as Mu lti pleChe mic a l Se ns iti vity (A CO EM 19 99 ). Th e ne we r n a me do e s n ot a ssu me a che mical, biochemical, or immunologic c ause f or the patient’s sy mptoms and was a dopted bec ause the re is no medical consensus as to its diag nostic criteria, e tio log y , o r the ra

py (A AA AI 19 99 , Po on a i et al . 2001). Sy mptoms are said to be cause d by exposure to a wide r ang e of human-made chemicals at doses far below those known to cause tox ic ef fec ts to humans (ACOEM 1999, Bailer 2005). Sy mpt oms may

inc lud e we akn e ss, dizzi ne ss, he a da c he s, he a t in tol e ranc e , d if fi c ult in conce ntrating , depre ssed mood, and memory loss (Pirag es and Richa

rd 1999). IEI is s a id t o b e “ theon ly

a ilm e nt i n e xiste nc e in w hic h th e patie nt d e fi ne s b oth the cause and the manifestations of his own c ondition” (Gots 1995). Many IEI patients self-r eport a llerg ies to chemica ls, but I g E levels havebeen show n to not support an aller g ic cause (B ailer et al . 2005). Another study found that IEI patients showed no diff

ere nce f rom control subjec ts in responses to solvents or place bos (B ornsche in et al . 2 00 8) . O the r r e se arc he rs su g g e st that IEI patie nts ha ve a n e xag g e rate d r e sp on se du e to h ype rs e ns iti vity to o do rs (v a n T hrie l e t al
. 2008). Curre ntly , IEI

is not recog nized as an org anic disea se by the American Aca demy of Allerg y

and Immunology , the American Me dical Association, the California Medic al Association, the Ame rican Collegeof Phy sicians, nor the I nternational Society

of Reg ulatory

Tox icolog y

and Pharma colog y

(Gots 1995). This notwithst anding , medical r esea rch c ontinues to investigate the causes of the phenomenon. Pre liminary data indicate that IEI

and panic disorder a

re r elated and may ha ve a c omm on ne ur og e ne tic orig in ( Poo nai et al
. 2 0 0 0 , B i n k l e y et al . 2001). Other data indicated that IEI patients may

have va riant g enes that code f

or alter ed drug -metabolizing e nzy mes (McK eown- Ey ssen e t al
. 2 0 0 4 , S ch n ak en b er g e t al
. 2007). Still other re sear cher s report that IEI appea rs to be a va

riant of somatoform disorder s, in which psy chiatric disorders c ause une x plained phy sical sympt oms ( e.g ., Bailer et al . 2005). Reg ardle ss of the ca

use of their

sy mptoms, I EI

patients can suffe r seve re disruption of work and daily life (Ma g ill and Suruda 1998). IEI is give n cre dence in reg ulatory

actions, tort liability , and wor kers c ompensation claims (Gots 1995). I n Florida , private pe st control operators areleg ally require d to notify

reg istered pe rs on s p ri or

to c he mic a l app lic a tio ns (C ha pte r 4 82 F .S. ). I n a dd iti on , F DA CS m ai n t ai n s a l i s to f p er s o n s wh o cl ai mt o b e p es t i ci d e- s en s i t i v e, re q u i ri n g aC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 154 phy sician’s c ertification of a hea lth concern, and ty pically mosquito control of fi c e s a vo id s pr a y ing the ir re sid e nc e s o r n oti fy

the m prior

to s pr a y op e ratio ns . 9. 5. 2 Che m ic al T r e spa ss Th e c on c e pt o f c he mic a l tr e sp a ss ( i.e. , a pp lying c he mic a ls t o an in div idu a l or the ir property ag ainst their wishes) e x tends bac k to old Florida statutes. How ever , statutory law (Chapte r 388 F .S.) now permits the application of mosquito control c he mic a ls i n th e pu bli c do ma in. Th e po te nti a l f or c on fl ic t is ob vio us , andthi s c on fl ic t ha s b e e n th e ba sis fo r s omec la ims in the pa st ( e.g. , by beeke eper s). Ad ultic idedrif

t, i n p artic ula

r, inv ite s c la ims of

c he mic a l tr e sp a ss. Mo sq uit o a du lti c ide s a

reno t la be le d f or app lic a tio n to we tland s a ndmos t e nv ir on me ntally se ns iti ve pu bli c ly

ow ne d u plandis a lso of

f- lim its . B e c aus e a ny

wi ndwi ll c re a te drif t, m os qu ito c on tr ol o pe rator s f a c e thedif

fi c ult ta sk of bo th h itting the ir

targ e ts and avoiding the adjac ent non-tar g et ar eas. A dulticides have be en shown to drift thr e e mil e s a ndin s omee xtre me ins ta nc e s u p to fi ve mil e s ( Du ke s e t al
. 2004). One study

in the Florida

Key s found that ae rial therma l fog drifted 750 mete rs (1⁄2 mile) into protected no- spray zones which harbor ed endang ere d verte brate and plant specie s, though no ha rm was de monstrated (H ennesse y and Ha beck 1991, H e n n e s s e y et al . 1992). Such data may appea r to sug g est the nee d for lar g er buffe r ar eas and/or ca

ref ul attention to meteorolog ical conditions to fully protec t no-spray zones. W ith the ge nera l replac ement in Florida of a eria l thermal fog g ing by aerial ULV treatments, some of these c oncerns may be allay ed. Tietze et al . ( 19 92 ) andTi e tze a ndSha ff e r ( 19 97 ) d oc ume nte d mi c ro sc op ic damag e to automotive paint finishes due to the a pplication of malathion and na led.
9.5.3 P otential P roblem s of Ch ronic Chem ical Exposu re Pr ob le ms r e su lti ng fr om c hr on ic e xpos ur e to c he mic a ls a rea g e ne ral pu bli c he a lth iss ue , b e c aus e e ve ry on e is e xpos e d d a ily to c he mic a l a ndpe sti c idere sid ue s in food, water, and air. In reg ard to c hronic e x posure to che micals, animal endoc rine a ndimmun e sy ste m dy sf

un c tio n s tud ie s h a ve pr ov ide d e vid e nc e that synth e tic pesticides and industrial c hemicals in very low quantities, after

repe ated e xpos ur e s, may

a ff e c t th e se fu nc tio ns (P ime nte l a ndL e hman 1 99 3) . Su c h c hr on ic exposure has bee n associate d both with decre ases in human spe rm counts and sperm abnormalities. Swan e t al
. (2003) and Swan (2006) e x amined ef fec ts of pesticides on quality

of human seme n in the United States. These studies reve aled that among men living in ag ricultural a rea s exposure to atrazine, alac hlor, and diaznon appear ed to dec rea se sperm conce ntration and motility , wher eas e x posure to malathion and DEET did not. A doc umented proble m in L ake A popka believe d to be caused by

chronic exposure to chemica ls, included small ge nitalia siz e and sperm abnormalities in male alligators (Colburn et al . 1 99 6) . Wh ile mos qu ito control che micals arenot impli cate d in these instance s, they area part of the total insecticide use picture. It should be noted that org anophosphate s, such as malathion, have be en used r outinely for ove r 40 y ear s in some FloridaC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 155 communities without any documented c hronic e ffe cts. This lack of documentation should not be misunderstood to be proof of abse nce of

risk, howeve r (Thie r 2001). This lac k of data may be a de triment to public relations. F o r e x a m p l e , P e t t y e t al
. (1 95 9) ob se rv e d th e de ve lop me nt o f t wo e xtre me po int s of view r eg arding the use of or g anophosphate pesticides in L ouisiana. On the one hand we re pe ople who we re too c asual in mix ing and applying pe sticides. On the other we re pe ople so frig htened by any use of pe sticides that they cre ated “loca liz ed hy steria”
. T h er e d o n o tap p ear t o b e s i gn i fi ca n ti l l ef fe ct s t o h u m an s at tri b u t ab l e t o l o n gterm, low-leve l expos ure to org anophosphate pesticides (WHO 1989, Steenland 1996, L eon-S. et al . 1 99 6, oth e rs re vie we d b y Es ke na zi et al . 1999). Insecticide s used for mosquito control in Florida have been e valuated f or this use by

the EPA. They pose minimal risk to human health and the e nvironment when use d a c c or din g to l abe l di re c tio ns . T he EPAe sti mate s th a t th e e xpos ur e a ndri sk s to adults and childre n posed by ULV ae rial and g round applications of malathion and naled r ang e fr om 100 to 10,000 tim es below the quantity of pesticide that might pr e se nt a he a lthc on c e rn(IDPH un date d) . L a l e t al
. (2004) e x amined blood cholinestera se leve ls of applicator s and re sidents of villag es involved in a ka laa zar c on tr ol p ro g ram inI nd ia . T he se re se arc he rs fo un d th a t bl oo d c ho lin e ste ra se levels of a

pplicators and villag ers de cline immediately afte r treatment of homes with 5% malathion suspension but stil l werewithin the normal rang e of blood cholinestera se leve ls. One we ek af ter a pplication the applicators’ blood cholinestera se leve ls were still depre ssed but remained within normal limit s. After one y ear of exposure the villag ers’ blood cholinestera se leve ls had returned to p re tr e a tme nt l e ve ls ( L a l et al . 2 00 4) . F e w d a ta c on c e rn ing inh a latio n to xici ty of malathion to humans ar e available, but Culver et al . (1956) and Golz (1959) found no sig nificant he alth eff ects be y ond nasal irritation. Be y ond the risks to humans and wildlife fr om pesticide exposure, application proce dures may

causeproblems by

promoting pe sticide resistanc e, re sulting in the need f or incre asing doses or ne w che micals. I n some locations, the widespr ead use of pe sticides by

ag riculture, home owner s, and mosquito control may have contributed to re sistance ( Boike et al . 1989). In some g eog raphic ally distinct are a s ( i.e. , is la ndsituatio ns ), sp ray ing ha s h e lpe d le a d to mos qu ito re sis ta nc e to certain chemicals (Reimer et al . 2005). Mosquito populations subj ect to che mical control oper ations may

be espe cially

vulnera ble to development of

resistanc e due to widesprea d applications of a single pesticide c oupled with the short g ener ation time with abundant prog eny of the mosquito life cy cle ( Heming way and Ranson 2000). Since it is curre ntly

impossibl e to pre dict the long -term c onsequenc es of human exposure to sy nthetic compounds, including mosquito control ag ents, a prude nt strateg y is for society

to reduc e all unnec essary chemical applications. For mosquito control, strides have be en made in this di rec tion by reg ulations that allow adulticide a

pplications only

afte r ade quate surve illance ve rifies a nuisanceC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 156 level . Mo sq uit o c on tr ol anda ll o the r i nd us trie s a pp lying c he mic a ls s ho uldus e alternative proce dures that r educethe nee d for c hemical a pplications whene ver po ssi ble . Su c h a c tio ns may re su lt i n d e c re a se d e nv ir on me ntal risk s. 9. 5. 4 Envi r onm e nt al C os ts of A dultic iding I n r e c e nt y e ars , s omepo lit ic ia ns , p ri vate int e re st g ro up s, a ndtheg e ne ral pu bli c have be come incr easing ly vocal in their c oncerns about potential human and e nv ir on me ntal ha zar ds a sso c iate d w iththeus e of c he mic a ls t o c on tr ol m os qu ito e s, espec ially aerially applied adulticides ( Gratz and J any 1994). This conc ern ha s g ener ated g reater a ccounta bilityby mosquito control operations when a pply ing insecticides, and some tighte r environme ntal restric tions have bee n implemented at the F eder al and State leve ls. Hopefully in the future, mor e ef

fec tive alternative strateg ies such as biolog ical contr ol ag ents and non-c hemical larvicides will be available for mosquito control. Realistically , howeve r, che mical companie s see the mosquito control market a s being relatively small and usually

not providing adequate ec onomic incentive to allocate the tre mendous costs (ea silytens of milli ons of dollars) ne cessa ry to develop and r ece ive a labe l for a ne w and sa fer product (Rose 2001)
. 9.5.4.1 Non-targe t Insect M ortality At times, an adve rsarial relationship has ex isted betwee n Florida mosquito control a ndbe e ke e pe rs . B e e s a

reve ry se ns iti ve to o rg a no ph os ph a te s, a nde xten siv e kil ls from mosquito control have be en docume nted. Acute problems usually include immediate bee kills, butsublethal amounts of org anophosphate s can a lso cause a g ener al dec line in hive vigor and/or a loss of fee ding a

bility(Atkins 1975). Despite doc umented ca ses involving mosquito control, ae rial ag ricultural spray ing pr ob ably a c c ou nts fo r m or e be e kil ls. B e e e xpos ur e to g ro un d a du lti c idi ng is minimal because treatment is almost alway s conducte d afte r the e vening or bef ore the morning cre puscular pe riods. Howeve r, under certain conditions, aeria l adulticiding some times occurs w hile bees a re f orag ing and there fore can bean inc re a se d th re a t. The incide nce of

conflicts betwe en bee keepe rs and mosquito control pea ked in the 1980s and has de clined in re cent y ear s. I n some parts of F lorida, mosquito control pr og rams a

reno w r e qu ir e d to no tif

y be e ke e pe rs in a dv a nc e of sp ray op e ratio ns to g ivethebe e ke e pe rs theop tio n o f c ov e ri ng or mov ing hiv e s. Th e imp a c t to honey bees w ithin targ et ar eas c an be minimized if insecticide deposition on the gro u n di s re d u ce dt o b el o w t h e e ff ec tt h re s h o l d(Zh o n g et al . 2003, 2004). I mprovements in mosquito control equipment also have led to reduc tions of h o n eyb ee m o rt al i t y

(Zh o n g et al . 2 00 4) . In th e 19 80 s, thestate dis tribu te d to beeke eper s a state map de picting w heremost aerial ope rations occ urre d (Sanfor d 1998). Curre ntly , mosquito control and beeke eper s maintain communication abo ut timi ng of

ins e c tic idal tr e a tme nts
.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 157 Other pollinators less we ll known than the honey bee may be impacte d by adulticiding. Per

haps 65% of

flowering plants depend upon insec t pollination, with many

plant specie s relying upon a specific insect spec ies. I n F lorida , andpa

rtic ula rl y in the F lorida

Ke y s, the reha s b e e n c on tr ov e rs y re g ard ing theimp a c t of

mos qu ito c on tr ol o n L e pid op te ra , e sp e c ia lly theSc haus ’ sw a llo wt a il ( Papilio aris todemus ponce anus ) andtheMiami b luebu tte rf ly ( Cy c lar gu s th om as i be thu ne ba k e ri ). Em me l ( 19 91 ) r e po rt e d th a t in se c t di ve rs ity wa s mu c h lo we r i n a

re a s su bje c te d to mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns ( i.e., Key L arg o) c omp are d to are a s n ot e xpos e d to mos qu ito c on tr ol ( i.e., ElliottKey ). 50 El ia zar a nd Em me l ( 19 91 ) andSa lvato ( 20 01 ) c a lc ulate d LD va lue s f or so me mosquito control adulticides ag ainst butterfly specie s. L aboratory

analy ses ar e not alway s ref

lective of events in the fie ld (Clark 1991, Charbonne au e t al
. 1994, Blus and H enny

1997). Experiments curre ntly arebeing conducte d in the Florida Key s to determine the impac ts of mosquito control operations on the Miami blue bu tte rf ly un de r f ie ld c on dition s. Wal ke r ( 20 01 ) also su g g e ste d th a t mo sq uit o c on tr ol w a s r e sp on sib le fo r e xtir patin g a wo odc ri c ke t ( Gr

y llu s c ay e ns is ) fr om the Florida Key s, althoug h he stated hehad no proof this was the ca se. The impac t of adulticides on the noc turnal insect f auna, both f

ly ing and nonfly ing, ha s not been we ll documented. One study in California eva luated the eff ects of a eria l application of py rethrin, malathion, and perme thrin on night fl y ing no n- targ e t in se c ts. A s ig nif ic a nt r e du c tio n innu mbe rs of no n- targ e t in se c ts was observed on the nig ht of the insecticide treatments, but insect numbers had rebounde d 24 hours later

(Jensen e t al
. 1999). Non-ta rg et impacts could be far bey ond what we know. These possible non-targ et impacts ar e worthy of further s t u d y.
9.5.4.2 Im pacts on Insectivore s Just a s th e imp a c ts o f m os qu ito a du lti c idi ng on no n- targ e t in se c ts a reno t w e ll quantified (Steve nson 1980), the ec ologic al impact fr om the reduc tion of mosquitoes is also larg ely unknown. Neve rtheless, it is commonly claimed that mos qu ito e s p lay

a n impo rt a nt r olea s a

fo odso ur c e fo r l arg e r o rg a nis ms. Claims inc lud e that la

rv a e area n impo rt a nt f

oo d f or oth e r a qu a tic or g a nis ms, that a du lts of many mosquito species have an important role in the pollination of plants, and that a du lts se rv e a s impo rt a nt f oo d s ou rc e s f

or bir ds , b a ts, a ndoth e r a

rthr op od s, including dr ag onflies and spider s. Th e e vid e nc e is l a c kin g fo r c omm on ly c ite d s pe c ie s su c h a s Pu rp le Ma rtins (K a le 1968) and bats (Easterla and Whitaker 1972, V estjens and Hall 1977, Sparks and Valdez 2003). Adults of most mosquito species arenot active during the hours that most drag onflies ar e see king pr ey (Pritchar d 1964a, Walton 2003). Neve rtheless, a dult drag onflies will prey on adult mosquitoes when the two are prese nt in the same habitat (Wrig ht 1944a, 1944b; Pritchard 1964a ). Ana ly sis of g ut contents has re veale d that consumption of mosquitoes by drag onflies is g reaterC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 158 in the early

morning hours; up to 19% of g ut contents consisted of mosquitoes (P ri tc ha rd19 64 a ). Th e imp orta nc e of mos qu ito larv a e a s f

oo d f or fi sh , a qu atic salamande rs, and pr edatory aquatic inse cts seems be tter demonstrated ( e.g ., Pritchard 1964b, Mathay an e t al
. 1980, Whit eman e t al
. 19 96 , L un dkvis t et al
. 2003). Booneand B ridg es (2003) have pointed out that c ontrol measure s that re du c e po pu latio n s ize s o f p la nktona nda qu a tic inv e rt e br a te s c a n h a ve a dv e rs e e ff e c ts o n amph ibi a ns du e to r e du c tio n o f availa blefo od s.
9. 5. 4. 3 F ish I mpacts of mosquito adulticides on fish have rec eived c onsiderable attention. Fish may be killed in small streams or ponds whe re slow f low rate s allow pesticide c oncentr ations to increa se in excess of toxi c leve ls or where heavy rainf a ll w ith in a

larg e wate rs he d a

re a a llo we d h ig h p uls e loa ds to e nte r s ma ll a qu a tic ha

bit a ts ( EPA20 06 ). Ris k to fi shis l ow e r i n s wi ft ly fl ow ing str e a ms beca use pesticides a

re transported downstre am and r apidly diluted (McEwe n e t al
. 1996-2000). F ield studies have shown that operational mosquit o control applications of pe sticides can beof shorter duration and of

lesser c oncentr ation that those used in worst-c ase sc enarios for environme ntal risk assessments (Clark 1991). F or example, in one field study , application of na led ac cording to label direc tions did notimpact fish (B ear den 1967). Te mephos applied at label rates re su lte d inno a dv e rs e imp a c t onblu e g ill (S a nd e rs et al . 1981). Malathion g round U LV a n dth e r mal f

o g ap p li c a ti o n s p r e s e n te dn o a c u teto xic ity to f is h ( T a g a tz et al
. 1974). Clark et al . ( 19 89 ) andCoate s e t al
. (1989) ha ve re viewed the literature pe rt a ini ng to t oxic ity

of pe sti c ide s to a qu a tic or g a nis ms.
9.5.4.4 Aquatic Crustace a Aquatic c rustace ans – cla docer ans, cope pods, lobsters, and shrimp – can be impacted by

mosquito control adulticides, probably due to their c lose phy loge ny to insects (Clark 1991). O lder studies docume nted ef fec ts of fenthion on o s tr a c o d s a n dc l a d o c e r a

( Kh u d a i r i a n d R u b e r

1 9 7 4 , R u b e r

1 9 6 3 )
. Z u l k o s ky et al
. (2 00 5) re po rt e d th a t r e sme thrin w a s mo retoxic to A me ri c a n lo bs te rs ( Homarus americanus ) than wa s malathion during 96 hour tests. Oper ational application of naled a ccor ding to labe l directions re sulted in no significant mortalityof shrimp or c r ab s ( B e ar d e n 1 9 6 7 )
. A q u a ti c h ab it a ts ar e a v o id e do p e r a ti o n a ll y to mi n im iz e su c h impa c ts.
9. 5. 5 Envi r onm e nt al C os ts of La r vic iding Controlling a br ood of larval mosquit oes while they arestill conce ntrated in a pool of water is ea sier, more eff icient, and less c ostlyenvironmenta lly than controlling dispersed a dults. Neverthe less, there still arecosts, and they should be rec og nized a ndmin imi zedto the e xten t pr a c tic able . U sin g bio ratio na l mate ri a ls ( e .g ., Bt i , me tho pr e ne ) m ini mize s n on -t arg e t e ff e c ts b e c aus e of

thesp e c if

ic ity of the se materia ls. Nevertheless, re sear ch has shown the re a re short-term ef

fec ts on non-C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 159 targ et insect spec ies when me thoprene is used for mosquito larviciding (He rshey e t al
. 1998). That same study reve aled that ther e wa s a delay ed ef fec t of 2-3 y ear s betwee n initiation of treatment with Bt i and evide nce of eff ects on the w etlands fo odwe b. Me tho pr e ne c a n a ff e c t c op e po ds , c ra

bs , andsh ri mp, a lth ou g h e ff e c ts g ener ally areseen at conce ntrations highe r than those of operational rates ( Miura and Takahashi 1973, McA lonan e t al
. 1976, Christiansen e t al
. 1977, Birc her and Ruber 1988). Arevie w of 75 studies of non- targ et ef fec ts of Bt i , conce rning nearly 125 families, 300 g ener a, and 400 spe cies is available (B oisvert and Boisvert 2000). Most resea rch on the use of monomolecula r films to control larv a e or pu pa e ha s sh ow n th a t th e reis l itt le or no e ff e c t onno n- targ e t or g a nis ms (r e vie we d b y

Sta rk 20 05 ). Ho we ve r, Ta

kaha sh i et al . ( 19 84 ) o bs e rv e d mo rt a lity of aquatic Hemiptera

(Corix idae, Notone ctidae) , Coleoptera ( Hy drophilidae), and clam shrimp (Limnadiidae) in fie ld trials of Arosurf . Reg arding the loss of ® mos qu ito e s a s impo rt a nt p re y , inthec a se of me tho pr e ne , s inc e morta lity g e ne rally occur s during the pupal stag e, larvae r emain as a prey source . Neve rtheless, the reduc tion of the hug e biomass of saltmar sh mosquitoes (potentially many milli ons of larva e per

acr e) must be sig nificant to some aquatic predators. Nielsen and Nielsen (1953) , for e x ample, desc ribed the vor acious c onsumption of Ae. taeniorhynchus larva e by minnows and wate r bee tle larva e. The loss may be mitigated by

some specie s, howeve r (Ha rring ton and Har

ring ton 1961, 1982) have shown that a fe w spec ies of fish ar e ca pable of dietary shifts following impoundment when mosquito broods were lost as a food sourc e.
9. 5. 6 Adu lt ic idingve r sus Lar vic iding B othlarv ic idea nda du lti c idec he mic a ls m a y imp a c t no n- targ e t sp e c ie s, a lth ou g h it is widely acc epted that larvicides haveless environmenta l impact than adulticides. L arvic ides can be quite tar g et spec ific ( e .g ., Bt i , me tho pr e ne ) andareus e d in specific habitats and unde r ce rtain conditions. Adulticides, on the other hand, are more broa dly

distributed by

truck or aircra ft, thus impacting both the ta rg et ar ea a ndpo te nti a lly

oth e r n e arb y

are a s th ro ug h dri ft

a ndru n- of

f. Suc h mo ve me nt i s a problem whe n the insecticide enter s wetlands or public lands wherethey arenot a llo we d. Al l mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams s ho uldc on tin ue to c on c e ntr a te the ir eff orts on developing eff

ective la rval surve illance and control prog rams in orde r t o ef fe ct i v el y m i n i m i z e t h e n ee dfo r a d u l t i ci d i n g. Al l in du strie s n e e d to c on tin ua lly re vie w andimp ro ve the ir op e ratio ns . M os qu ito control is no exception. When larval or a dult control has not worke d eff ectively , a thoroug h assessment should be c onducted so the pr og ram c an be improve d. L arva l control will usually allow some mosquitoes to emerg e, mostly due to the inspection prog ram' s failureto identify a mosquito brood or to implement thoroug h treatment cover ag e. Likewise, a dulticiding is by no means 100% e ff e c tiv e . A n e du c a tio n p ro g ram to inf orm th e pu bli c that at le a st s ome mosquitoes are to be expected in Florida is warr anted.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 160 

### 9. 6 SOURCE RED UCTION Ac hie vin g pe rm a ne nt m os qu ito c on tr ol b y e lim inatin g mos qu ito larv a l ha bit a ts i s called sour ce r eduction. It rang es fr om efforts as simple as collecting discarde d tires to long- term habitat a ltering measure s. Severa l source r eduction tec hniques for sa ltmarsh mosquito control are pr esently used. F or more inf

ormation about source reduc tion, see Chapter 4. Ditching is a strateg y

wher eby mosquito producing de pressions of tidal water or rainfall are e ng ineer ed to drain and larvivorous f ish are allowed ac cess. Ditching is most effec tive wher e daily tides flush the potential mosquito ovipos ition si tes on the marsh. Ditching can inc rea se tidal flushing of soils, increa se oxy g en availability

to plants, reducesoil salinit y , and contribute to increa sed primary productivity

of salt marsh plants. It also can inc rea se fish diversity within the marsh and c an provide additional habitat for bir ds (Anonymous 1990, Resh and Ba lling 2003). Theenvironmenta l costs of ditching include cr eation of pe rmane nt scar s on the marsh and adver se ef fec ts on natural hy drolog y and biolog ical productivity . Ditching historically has cr eate d berms which allow encr oachme nt of wo od y , o ft e n e xotic , v e g e tatio n. Whil e dit c hin g c a n b e e ff e c tiv e fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol, it a lso c a n c re a te larv a l ha bit a t f or biting mid g e s ( Culicoides sp p. ), ins e c ts which ar e diffic ult to control and fre quently areperc eived a s being much more annoying than mosquitoes. I mpounding be came popular a long the I ndian River L ag oon in the 1950s and 1 9 6 0 s wh en eart h en d i k es we re b u i l tar o u n dap p ro x i m at el y 4 2 , 0 0 0 ac re s o f h i gh sa lt m ars h to a llo w f

or the ir se a so na l f

loo din g . T his te c hn iqu e be c a me themos t eff ective and economica lly

fea sible approa ch to saltmarsh mosquito control on Florida ' s central east coa st. Although e arly impounding ef

forts g reatly

decr ease d the nee d for a dulticiding and virtually eliminated the nee d to larvicide, the e nv ir on me ntal c on se qu e nc e s in c lud e d h ig h mo rt a lity of thenativ e mars h ve g e tatio n andtheiso latio n o f tho us a nd s o f a c re s o f s a lt m ars h. Th e se ha bit a ts arec ri tic a l f

or thede ve lop me nt o f m a ny imp orta nt m ari ne sp e c ie s ( e.g ., fish, crustac eans, mollusks), and their loss neg atively

aff ecte d the multibil lion dollar c omm e rc ia l a ndre c re a tio na l f ish e ry . D e sp ite the se imp a c ts, hig h s a ltm ars h impoundments have provided g ood fee ding opportunities for ducks and w ading birds (Provost 1959, 1969), althoug h some use of the se impoundments may be due to loss of habitat elsewhe re ( e.g. , loss in the Kissim mee River and St. J ohns River flood plains due to human deve lopment and drainag e). Un int e nti on a l e ff

e c ts o f s ou rc e re du c tio n p ra c tic e s h a ve inc lud e d: c hang e s in plant composition and abundanc e that af fec t their value a s fora g e or she lter, c hang e s ina nim a l di ve rs ity a ndabu nd a nc e wh ic h a lte r the fo odwe b, c hang e s in c omp e tit ivere latio ns hip s b e tw e e n p re dator s a ndpr e y , andinc re a se d s us c e pti bil ity to d ise a se a ndpa

ra sit ism . A n e xtre me e xamp le of un int e nti on a l pe sti c ideimp a c ts is that th e us e of

so me a g ri c ultur a l c he mic a ls h a s alte re d e nti ree c os y ste ms, resulting in freshw ater

eutrophication.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 161 Since the ea

rly 1980s scientific re sear ch has ide ntified improved water manag ement tec hniques that reinteg rate impounded marshes w ith the estuary
. This rec onnection re stores many natura l marsh func tions while stil l controlling mos qu ito po pu latio ns wi th a min imu m of

pe sti c ideus e . T he rearetw o s a lt m ars h manag ement tec hniques which be st acc omplish t hese de sirable g oals, and they have be en ag g ressively

implemented by

mosquito control ag encie s: Rotational I mpoundment Manag ement (RIM) and Ope n Marsh Water Manag ement (OMWM), typically

utiliz ing r otary

ditching ( Carlson 2006).


### 9. 7 MOSQUITO CONTROL ON BIOL OGI CALLY P ROD UCT I V E S TAT E- OWNE D L ANDS Florida public land manag ement ag encie s g ener ally believe that any

external inf lue nc e that po te nti a lly

thr e a te ns thefl or a , f

aun a , o r n a tur a l sy ste ms u nd e r the ir manag ement must be consider ed with caution. For e x ample, althoug h pest control on c e wa s a

priority in F lorida ’s pa

rk s ( e.g., Provost 1952), park mana g ers now pursue an ecosy stem manag ement appr oach that considers the w ell-being of entire bio log ic a l c ommun iti e s ( e.g., Stevenson 1991). Chapter 388.4111 F.S. mandate s that pu bli c la nd s may

be de sig nate d b y

the ir ma na g e rs to b e “ e nv ir on me ntally sensitive and biolog ically highly productive” . Once decla red, and wher e such lands have public health or nuisanc e leve ls of mosquitoes, their mosquito control activities areconducte d acc ording to a spec ial “public lands a rthropod contr ol plan”. Theplan is written by mutual ag ree ment betwee n the ag ency and the mosquito control prog ram to authorize ac tiviti es that ar e the minimum necessa ry and ec onomically

fea sible to abate the health or nuisanc e proble m and impose the least hazard to f

ish, wildli fe, and other natural re source s. Since adulticiding is not highly selec tive and non-ta

rg et spec ies can be adversely aff ecte d, state land ma na g e rs g e ne rally

be lie ve a du lti c idi ng is c on tr ary to the le g isl a tiv e ma nd a te to protec t environmentally

sensitive and biolog ically productive state lands. Other c on tr ol m e tho ds , id e a lly

bio log ic a l c on tr ols ( e.g. , Gambusia spp . for larval control) or

larviciding with Bt i or methopre ne, which a re mostly targ et-spec ific, areus ua lly

a c c e pta bleto the a g e nc ie s. Al low ing the se pr a c tic e s o n mo st properties is viewed by

the state a s a re asonable compromise for adhering to the le g isl a tiv e ma nd a te s r e g ard ing pu bli c la ndpr ote c tio n andmos qu ito c on tr ol.


### 9. 8 MU TUAL AC COMM ODATION The e ffe cts of pesticide s on targ et and non- targ et org anisms, wildlife, soil, and wate r c a n b othbe ne fi t a ndne g a tiv e ly imp a c t F lorida ' s q ua lity

of lif e . B oth mos qu ito c on tr ol andthepr ote c tio n o f e nv ir on me ntally se ns iti ve ha

bit a ts i n Florida areleg islatively

mandated, ne eded, and important to the state. Indeed, the y ne e d n ot b e mutua lly

e xclu siv e g oa ls ( e.g., O’B ry an e t al
. 1990, Batzer and Resh 1992). B eca

use the sele ction of che micals available for both larviciding and a du lti c idi ng is b e c omi ng inc re a sin g ly lim ite d w ith ou t many

ne w p ro du c ts i n de ve lop me nt, a ndbe c aus e of thepo ssi bil ity

of no n- targ e t in se c tic idee ff e c ts, it i sC hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 162 inc umb e nt that mo sq uit o c on tr ol p e sti c ide s b e app lie d w ise ly in i nte g rate d p e st ma na g e me nt p ro g rams. It is a lso imp orta nt that ne w, mor e e nv ir on me ntally acc eptable me thods are de veloped, teste d, and used a s they become available , and that rese arc h continues to document non-ta rg et and human he alth eff ects of the pesticides used. TheAmeric an Public Hea lth Association has noted, “de bates over the use of pe sticides for public he alth vector control havesometimes divided the public hea lth and environmenta l communities ... at a time when maximi zing public health and e nvironmental protec tion requires c lose coordination and mutual trust betwee n those communities” (APHA 2001) . Continued dialoguebetwee n mosquito control and environmenta l resourc e ag encie s is necessa ry to make c e rt a in that mo sq uit o c on tr ol m ini mize s a ll i ts a dv e rs e e nv ir on me ntal e ff e c ts while protec ting the public he alth and we lfare
. 

### 9 . 9 REF ERE NCE S AND G ENE RAL RE ADI NG AAAAI (American Ac ademy

of Allerg y , Asthma and Immunology ). 1999. I diopathic environme ntal intoleranc es. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology103: 36-40. ACOEM (American Colleg e of O ccupation and Environmental Medic ine). Multipl e che mical sensitivities: i diopathic environme ntal intoleranc e. Journal of Occ upational and Environmental Medicine 41: 940-942. Addison, D.S. and S.A. Ritchie. 1993. Cattle fatalities from prolong ed exposure to Aede s taeniorhynchus in southwest Florida. Fl or ida Sc ie nti st 56: 65-69. Anonymous. 1990. Salt m arsh r estored. TR N e ws , J anuary -F ebrua

ry 1990. APH A ( Am e ri c a n Pu bli c He a lthAs so c iatio n) . 2 00 1. Ma ximizin g pu bli c he a lth protec tion with int eg rate d vector control. Am e ric an J

ou rn al o f P ub licHe alt

h 91: 22-23. AST HO (A sso c iatio n o f S tate a ndTe rrito ri a l H e a lthOf fi c e rs ). 20 03 . Pu bli c He a lthCon fr on ts the Mo sq uit o: D e ve lop ing Sus ta ina bleState a ndL oc a l Mo sq uit o Control Programs. Acce ssed Octobe r 18, 2006. ( htt p:/ /w ww .a sth o. or g /?temp late = mos qu ito _c on tr ol. htm l )
. Atkins, E.L . 1975. I njury to honey bees by poisoning. The hive and the honey bee. H amilton, I L : Dadant and Sons, I nc. ATSDR (Ag ency

for Toxic Substances and D isease Re g istry ). 2003. Tox icolog ical prof

ile for malathion. Acce ssed Octobe r 18, 2006. ( http:// www.atsdr.cdc.g ov/tox profiles/tp154.html#bookmark07 )
.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 163 Bailer, J., M . Wit hoft, C. Paul, C. Bay erl and F. Rist. 2005. Evidence for ove rlap betwee n idiopathic environmenta l intoleranceand somatoform disorders. Psychosom atic Medic ine 67: 921-929. Bailey , R. 2002. Silent Spring at 40: Rache l Carson’s cla ssic not ag ing w ell. Acc essed Aug ust 14, 2002. ( htt p:/ /r e a so n. c om/

rb /r b0 61 20 2. sh tml )
. Banerje e, B .D., S.T. Pasha, Q.Z . Hussain, B .C. Koner and A. Ray . 1998. A compar ative evaluation of immunotox icity of malathion af

ter subchr onic exposure in experimental animals. Indian Journal of Expe rimental Biology 36: 273-282. Batzer, D.P. and V.H. Resh. 1992. Wetland mana g ement strate g ies that enhance waterfowl habitats can also control mosquitoes. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 8: 117-125. Bauman, P.M., A. Clark, L . Bauman and A.H . Br oadwe ll. 1991. Bacillus sphaericus as a mosquito pathog en: prope rties of the or g anism and its tox ins. Mi c ro bio log

y an d M ole c ula r B iol ogy Re v ie ws 55: 425-436. B e ard e n, C.M . 1 96 7. F ie ld t e sts c on c e rn ing thee ff e c ts o f D ibr om 1 4 Co nc e ntr a te (nale d) on estuarine animals. Contribution No. 45, USDOI , Be ars B luff L aboratories, SC. Binkley , K., N. King , N. Poonai, P. Seeman, C. Ulplan and J. Kennedy . 2001. I diopathic environme ntal intoleranc e: incre ased pr evale nce of panic disorde rassociate d cholec y stokinin B rec eptor a llele 7. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology107: 887-890. B ir c he r, L . andE. Rub e r. 19 88 . T oxic ity of me tho pr e ne to all s ta g e s o f the sa lt marsh cope pod, Apocy clops spartinus (Cy cy lopoida). Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 4: 520-523. Bla ckmore , C.G.M., L .M. Stark, W.C . J eter , R.L . Oliveri, R.G. B rooks, L .A. Conti and S.T. W iersma. 2003. Surve illance r esults from the first West Nile virus transmission season in Florida , 2001. American J ournal of T

ropical Medicine and Hygiene 69: 141-150. B lus , L .J. a ndC.J. H e nn y . 1 99 7. F ie ld s tud ie s o n p e sti c ide s a ndbir ds : unexpected and unique relations. Ecological Applications 7: 1125-1132. B oik e , A .H ., Jr., C.B . Rathb urn, Jr., T. G. F loo re , H .M . Ro drig ue z an d J.S. Conklin. 1989. I nsecticide toleranc e of Culex nigripalpus in Florida. Journal of the Ame rican Mosquito ControlAssociation 5: 522-528.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 164 Boisver t, M. and J . Boisvert. 2000. Effe cts of Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is var. isr ae le ns is on targ e t a ndno nta rg e t or g a nis ms: a

re vie w o f l abo ratory

a ndfi e ld experiments. Biocontrol Science and Technology 10: 517-561. Boone , M.D. and C.M. Bridge s. 2003. Effe cts of pesticide s on amphibian populations. In: Semlits ch, R.D. (Ed.)
. Amphibian Conservation . Washington, DC: Sm ithsonian I nstitut ion Press. Bor schein, S., C. Hausteiner , H. Rommelt, D. Nowak, H. F orstl and T. Z ilker. 20 08 . D ou ble -b lin d p a c e bo -c on tr oll e d p ro vo c a tio n s tud y in p a tie nts wi th subjective Multiple Chemical Sensitivity(MCS) and matche d control subjects. Clini cal Toxicology 46: 443-449. Br eeland, S.G. and J .A. Mulrennan, J r. 1983. F lorida mosquito control. Pe st Control51: 16-24. Bur eau of Economic and Business Rese arc h, University of F lorida. 2004. Historical Census Counts for Florida and Its C ounties 1830 through 2000. Acc essed Aug ust 14, 2006. ( http:// www.be br.ufl.edu/node/18 ) Carl so n, D. B . 2 00 6. Sou rc e re du c tio n inF lorida ’s sa lt m ars he s: m a na g e me nt t o reduc e pesticide use and e nhancethe re source . J ou rn al o f th e Am e ric an Mo sq uito Control Ass ociation 22: 534-537. Carson, P.J ., P. Konewko, K.S. Wold, P . Mariani, S. Goli, P. Ber g loff and R.D. Cr os by . 2 00 6. L on g -t e rm c lin ic a l a ndne ur op sy c ho log ic a l ou tc ome s o f We st N ile virus infec tion. Clini cal Infec tious Diseases 43: 723-730. Carson, R. 1962. S i l e n tS p r i n g . N e w Y o rk , U S A : H o u g h t o n M i f f l i n C o m p a n y. Charbonnea

u, C.S., R .D. Drobne y , and C.F. Rabe n. 1994. Effe cts of Bacillus thu rin gie ns is var. isr

ae le ns is on nontarg et benthic or g anisms in a lentic habitat and fa ctors af

fec ting the e ffica cy

of the larvicide. Environmental Toxicology and Che mi str y 13: 267-297. Christiansen, M.E., J .D. Costlow, J r. and R.D. Monroe . 1977. Effe cts of the juvenile hormone mimic Z R-515 (Altosid) on larva l development of the mud-cra b ( Rh ith ro pa no pe us ha rri sii ) in various salinities and c y clic temper ature s. Marine Biology 39: 269-279. Clark, J .R. 1991. Mosquit o control pesticides: a dverse impacts to fre shwater aquatic and marine or g anisms. In : E mme l, T .C. a ndJ.C. T uc ke r ( Ed s. ). Mo sq uit o Control Pesti cides: Ecolog ical Impacts and Manag ement Alternatives. Gainesville: Scientific.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 165 Clark, D.R., J r., E.L . Flicking er, D .H. White, R.L . Hothem and A.A . Be lisle. 19 95 . D if ic ol andDD T r e sid ue s inliza rdc arc a sse s a ndbir d e g g s f ro m T e xas, Florida , and California
. Bulletin of Environmental Contaminati on and Toxicology 54: 817-824. Colburn, T., D. Dumanoski and J. P eter son My ers. 1996. Hormonal sabotag e. Nat ur al H istor y 105: 42-49. Culver, D., P. Caplan and G .S. Batc helor. 1956. Study of human e x posure during aer osol application of malathion and c hlorthion. American M edical Association Arc hiv e s o

f I nd us tri al H

e alt h 13: 37-50. Curtis, J . and T. Profe ta. 1993. The unsolved pr oblems of pesticide use in the United States. New York: Natural Resourc e De fense Council, I nc. Dukes, J., H. Zhong , M. Gree r, P.G. Hester , D. Hog an and J. Bar ber . 2004. A Comparison of Two Spray Sy stems Using a

Multipl e Swath Scena

rio for the Aerial Application of F enthion. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 20: 36-44. Ea ste rl a , D .A . andJ.O. Whit ake r, Jr. 1 97 2. F oo d h abit s o f s omebats f ro m B ig Be nd National Park, Te x as. Journal of Mammalogy 53:887-890. Edwar ds, C. 1993. The impac t of pesticides on the e nvironment. New York: Routledge , Chapman and H all, I nc. Ed wa rd s, D. 20 04 . M e tho xy c hlo r r e re g ist ratio n e lig ibi lity

de c isi on (R ED ). EPA Publication No. EPA 738-R-04-010. Ac cesse d October 16, 2007. ( htt p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /op ps rr d1 /RE Ds /me tho xy c hlo r_ re d. htm )
. Edwar ds, J .G. 2002. Why DDT wa s banned ... the lies of Rache l Carson. Acc essed Aug ust 16, 2006. ( htt p:/ /w ww .c iti zen re vie wo nli ne .o rg/no v_ 20 02 /w hy _d dt. htm )
. Edwar ds, J .G. 2004. DDT: A c ase study in scientific fr aud. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 9: 83-88. Eliazar, P.J . and T.C. Emmel. 1991. Adver se impacts to non-tar g et insects. In : Emmel, T.C. and J .C. Tucker (Eds.). Mosquito Control Pesti cides: Ecolog ical I mpacts and Manag ement Alternatives. Gainesville: Scientific. Emmel, T.C. 1991. Overview : mosquit o control, pesticides, and the ec osy stem. In : Emmel, T.C. and J .C. Tucker (Eds.). Mosquito Control Pesti cides: Ecolog ical I mpacts and Manag ement Alternatives. Gainesville: Scientific. pp. 9-13.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 166 EPA (Environmental Protec tion Age ncy ). 2002. Permethrin, Resmethrin, Sumit hrin: sy nthetic py

rethroids for

mosquito control. Acce ssed Aug ust 11, 2006. ( htt p:/ /w ww .e pa .g ov /pe sti c ide s/h e a lth/mo sq uit oe s/p yre thr oid s4 mos qu ito e s. htm )
. Es ke na zi, B ., A. B ra dman andR. C a sto ri na . 1 99 9. Expo su re s o f c hil dr e n to org anophosphate pesticides and the ir potential adve rse he alth eff ects. En v iro nm e nta l H

e alt h P e rsp e c tiv e s S up

ple me nts 107(S3): 409-419. Fa rajollahi, A., R. Gate s, W. C rans and N. Komar . 2004. Serolog ic evidenc e of West Nile virus and St. L ouis Encephalitis virus infec tions in W hite-tailed de er ( Odocoileus v irginianus ) fr om New Jersey , 2001. Ve c tor -b or ne Zoo no tic Diseases 4: 379-383. Fr ank, J.H., E.D. McCoy , H.G. Ha ll, G.F. O’ Mear a and W.T. Tschinke l. 1997. I mmigration and I ntroduction of Insects. In : Sim berloff , D., D.C. Schmitz and T.C. Brow n (Eds.). Strang ers in Para dise: I mpact and Manag ement of Nonindige nous Species in Florida. Washington, DC: I sland Press. Gaiser , D. 1980. The importanc e of mosquito control to tourism in Florida. Procee dings of the Florida Anti -Mosquito Association 51: 7-8. Golz, H.H. 1959. Controlled human expos ures to malathion ae rosols. American Me dic al A sso c iat ion Arc hiv e s o f I nd us tri al H

e alt h 19: 53-59. Gots, R.E. 1995. Multi ple che mical sensitivities – publi c policy
. Journal of Toxicology-Clinical Toxicology 33: 111-113. Gratz, N.G. and W.C . J any . 1994. What role for insec ticides in vector c ontrol p r o g r a m s ? American J

ournal of T

ropical Medicine and Hygiene 50: 11-20. Hamer , J . L . 1985. Southeastern br anch inse ct detec tion, evaluation and predic tion report. 1983 (V ol. 8). CollegePark, MD: Entomologic al Society of Americ a. Har den, F .W. 1981. You and the environme nt. J ou rn al o f th e Fl or ida An tiMosquito Association 52: 60-61. Har ring ton, R.W . and E.S. Har ring ton. 1961. Food sele ction among fishes invading a hig h subtropical salt marsh: fr om onset of flooding throug h the prog ress of a

mosquito brood. Ecology 42: 646-66. Ha rr i n gt o n , R
. W
. an dE
. S
. Ha rr i n gt o n . 1 9 8 2
. E ff ec t s o n fi s h es an dt h ei r f

o ra ge or g a nis ms o f i mpo un din g a F lorida sa lt m ars h to pr e ve nt b re e din g by sa lt m ars h mosquitoes. Bulletin of Marine Scienc e 32: 523-31.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 167 Heming way , J . and H. Ranson. 2000. Insecticide resistanc e in insect ve ctors of human disease
. Annual Revie w of Entomology 45: 371-391. Henne ssey , M.K. and D.H . Habe ck. 1991. Eff ects of a dulticiding on populations on non-targ et terr estrial arthropods in the Florida Key s. Unpublished Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service and Univer sityof F lorida Cooperative Wil dlife Re se arc h U nit
. Henne ssey , M.K., H.N. Nig g and D.H. H abec k. 1992. Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) a dulticide drift into wildlife ref ug es of the F lorida Ke y s. Environmental Entomology 14: 714-21. Her shey , A.E., A.R. Lima, G.J . Niemi and R.R. Reg al. 1998. Eff ects of Bacillus thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is (B TI ) and me thoprene on nontarg et macr oinvertebr ates in Minnesota wetlands. Ecological Applications 8: 41-60. Hill, J .R. I I I . 1992. Ten way s to increa se the size of y our martin colony
. Acc essed Aug ust 16, 2006. ( htt p:/ /w ww .p ur

ple martin. or g /up date/Re print s. htm l ). (R e print e d f

ro m Pu rp le Ma rti n U

pd ate 3: 28-29.) Hill, J .R. I I I . 1994. What’s bugg ing y our birds? An introduction to the ectopa rasites of pur

ple martins. Acc essed Aug ust 16, 2006. ( htt p:/ /w ww .p ur

ple martin. or g /up date/Pa

ra sit e s. htm l ). (R e print e d f ro m Pu rp le Ma rti n U pd ate 5: 1-7.) Hriba r, L .J. a ndE. M. F us se ll. 20 05 . M os qu ito c on tr ol, Miami b lue s, a ndma ss media in Monroe County , Florida
. Te c hn ic al B ull e tin of t he Fl or ida Mo sq uito Control Ass ociation No. 5. Hushon, J .M. 2006. Pesticides in southwest Florida waterway s – a re port ca rd. Fl or ida Sc ie nti st

69 (Supplement 2): 100-116. I DPH (Illi no is D e pa

rtme nt o f P ub lic He a lth ). (u nd a te d) . Pr e ve nti on a ndCon tr ol. Questions and Answe rs about Spraying f or Adult Mosquitoes. Acce ssed Dec ember

1, 2006. ( htt

p:/ /w ww .idph .s tate .il .u s/e nv he a lth/f a c tsh e e ts/fo g .h tm ) Jens e n, T. , S. P. L a wl e r andD. A. Dritz. 19 99 . E ff e c ts o f u ltr a -l ow vo lum e pyrethrin, malathion, and perme thrin on nontarg et inverte brate s, sentinel mosquitoes, and mosquitofish i n seasona lly impounded wetlands. Journal of the American M

osquito Cont rol Association 15: 330-338. Kale, H .W. I I . 1968. The re lationship of purple martins to mosquito control. The Auk 85: 654-661.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 168 Khudairi, S.Y.A. a nd E. Ruber. 1974. Survival and r eproduc tion of ostracods a s aff ecte d by pesticides and te mperature. Journal of Economic E ntomology 67: 22-24. Kristan, M., H. F leischmann, A. de lla Torre , A. Stich and C.F. Curtis. 2003. Pyrethroid r esistance/susceptibilityand diffe rential urban/rural distribution of An op he le s a ra bie ns is and An
. gambiae s.s. malaria ve ctors in Nig eria and Ghana. Medic al and Veterinary Entomology 17: 326-332. Kutz, F.W., T.G. W ade and B.B . Pag ac. 2003. Ag eospatial study of the potential of tw o e xotic sp e c ie s o f m os qu ito e s to imp a c t th e e pid e mio log y of Wes t N ile virus in Mary land. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 19: 190-198. L al, C.S., V. Kumar, A. Ranjan, V.N.R. Das, N. K umar, K. Kishore and S.K. Bhattachary a. 2004. Eva luation of cholinester ase le vel in an ende mic population exposed to malathion suspension formulation as a vec tor control mea sure. Mem órias do Institut o Oswaldo Cruz 99: 219-221. L eon-S., F .E., G. Pradilla and E . Vesg a. 1996. Ne urolog ical ef fec ts of org anophosphate pesticides. British Medical Journal 313: 690-693. L ord, C.C. and R. Rutl edg e-Connelly . 2006. Protecting Florida horses fr om m o s q u i t o e s . F l o r i d a

C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e F a c tS h e e tE N Y

- 6 4 6 ( IN 181). Ac cesse d October

13, 2006. ( http:// edis.ifas.ufl.e du/in181 )
. Lundkvist E., J . L andin, M. J ackson and C. Svensson. 2003. Diving bee tles (Dytiscidae) a s predators of mosquito larvae (Culicidae) in field experiments and in laboratory

tests of prey

pref ere nce. Bulletin of Entomological Research 93: 219-226. Ly on , W. F . andJ.A. Ste e le . 1 99 8. Mo sq uit o Pe st M a na g e me nt. Oh io S tate University

Ex tension Bulletin No. 641. Mag ill, M.K. and A. Suruda. 1998. Multiple chemica l sensitivit y sy ndrome. American F

amily Physician 58: 721-728. Mathay an, S., J . Muthukrishnan and G.A . Helee nal. 1980. Studies on predation on mosquito l arva e by

the fish Macropodus c upanus . Hy drob iol og ia 75: 255-258. McAlonan, W.G., F .J . Murphey and R.W. L ake. 1976. E ffe cts of two insec t g rowth re g ulators on some selec ted saltmarsh non-ta rg et org anisms. Procee dings of the New JerseyMosquito Control Association 63: 198.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 169 Mc Ke ow n- Ey sse n, G. , C. B a ine s, D. E. Col e , N . Ri le y , R. F . T y nd a te , L . M ars ha ll and V. Jazm aji. 2004. Case-c ontrol study of g enoty

pes in multipl e che mical sensitivity : CYP2D6, NAT1, NAT2, PON1, PON2, and MTHFR. International Journal of Epidemiology 33: 971-978. Miller, D.L ., Z .A. Radi, C. Ba ldwin and D. Ing ram. 2005. F atal West Nile virus infec tion in a Whi te-tailed de er ( Odocoileus v irginianus ). J ou rn al o f W ildlif e Diseases 41: 246-249. Miura, T.V. and R.M. Takaha shi. 1973. I nsect de velopmental inhibitors. 3. Effe cts on non-tar g et aquatic org anisms. Journal of Economic E ntomology 66: 917-922. Mo e lle r, H. C. andJ.A. Rid e r. 19 62 . Pl a sma a ndre d b loo d c e ll c ho lin e ste ra se a c t i v i t y a s i n d i c a t i o n s o f

t h e t h r e s h o l do f

i n c i p i e n tt o x i c i t y o f

e t h yl

- p - n i tr o p h e n yl thionobenzenephosphate ( EPN) and malathion in human beings. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology4: 123-130. Mulla, M.S. and H. A. Darwazeh. 1981. Eff icac y of petrole um larvicidal oils and their impact on some a quatic non-ta rg et org anisms. Procee dings and Papers of the Californi a Mosquito ControlAssociation 49: 84-87. Mulrennan, J.A., J r. 1991. B enef its of mosquit o control. In: Emmel, T.C. and J .C. Tucker

(Eds.). Mosquito Control Pesti cides: Ecolog ical Impacts and Manag ement Alternatives. Ga inesville: Scientific. Nay ar, J.K. and A. Ali. 2003. A re view of monomolec ular surf acefilms as mosquito control ag ents and their e ffe cts on nontarg et org anisms. Journal of Vec tor Ecology 28: 190-199. Nielsen, E.T. and A.T. Nielsen. 1953. F ield observations on the habits of Aede s taeniorhynchus
. Ecology 34: 141-156. Nowell, L .H., P.D. Capel and P.D. Dileanis. 1999. Pesticides in stream sediment a nda qu a tic bio ta : di stribu tio n, tr e nd s, a ndg ov e rn ing fa c tor s. B oc a Raton : L e wi s. O’B ry an, P.D., D.B . Carlson and R.G. Gilmore. 1990. Salt marsh mitig ation: an example of the proc ess of ba lancing mosquito control, natural re source and development inter ests. Fl or ida Sc ie nti st 53: 189-203. O ’ L e ary , D
. R
. , A
. A
. M ar f i n , S
. P
. M o n t g o m e ry , A
. M
. K i p p , J. A
. L e h m a n , B
. J. Big g erstaf

f, V.L . Elko, P.D. Coll ins, J .E. J ones and G .L . Campbell. 2004. The epidemic of

West Nile virus in the United States, 2002. Ve c tor -b or ne Zoo no tic Diseases 4: 61-70.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 170 Patterson, G. 2004. Th e Mo sq uit o Wa rs : A Hi sto ry

of Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol i n Florida . Gainesville, F L : University Press of F lorida. Pe te rs on , R. K. D. , P. A. Ma c e do a ndR.S. Da vis . 2 00 6. A h uman- he a lthri sk assessment for

West Nile virus and insecticides use d in mosquit o manag ement. Environmental He alth Perspective s 114: 366-372. Petty , C.S., A. Hedmeg , W.H. Reinhart, E.J . Moore and L .F. Dunn. 1959. Org anic phosphate insecticide s – a surve y of blood cholinester ase a ctivity of exposed ag ricultural wor

kers in L ouisiana, 1957. Am e ric an J ou rn al o f P ub lic He alt h 49: 62-69. Pime nte l, D . andH. L e hman. 19 93 . T he pe sti c idequ e sti on : e nv ir on me nt, economics and ethics. Ne w York: Routledg e, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. Pirag es, S.W. and C.L . Richard. 1999. Multiple che mical sensitivities. Procee dings of the Annual Meeting, New Je rsey M osquito Cont rol Association 83: 14-22. Poo nai, N ., M. M. An ton y , K .E . B inkle y , P. Ste nn , R. P. Sw ins on , P. Cor e y , F .S. Silv e rm a n andS.J. T arl o. 20 00 . Ca rb on dio xide inh a latio n c ha lle ng e s in idiopathic environmenta l intolerance
. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology105: 358-363. Poo nai, N .P. , M .M . A nto ny , K .E . B inkle y , P. Ste nn , R. P. Sw ins on , P. Cor e y , F .S. Silv e rm a n andS.J. T arl o. 20 01 . Ps y c ho log ic a l f e a tur e s o f s ub

je c ts w ith idiopathic environmenta l intolerance
. Journal of Psychosomatic R esearc h 51: 537-541. Pritchard, G. 1964a . The pre y of adult dra g onflies in northern A lberta. Canadian En tom olo gis t

96: 821-825. Pr itc ha rd , G . 1 96 4b . T he pr e y

of dr a g on fl y

larv a e (O do nata : A nis op te ra ) i n ponds in northern Albe rta. Canadian Journal of Z oology 42: 785-800. Provost, M.W . 1952. I nsect e nemies of pa rk comfort. Procee dings of the Park Short Course 3: 33-40. Pr ov os t, M .W. 19 59 . Impo un din g sa lt m ars he s f or mos qu ito c on tr ol ... a ndits eff ects on bird life
. Fl or ida Nat ur ali st 32: 163-170. Provost, M.W . 1969. Ecolog ical contr ol of salt marsh mosquitoes with side benef its to bi rds. Proce eding s of the Ta ll Timbers Confere nce on E colog ical An ima l Co ntr ol b y

Ha bit a t Mana g e me nt.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 171 Rag havendr a, K., K. V asantha , S.K. Subbarao, M.K.K. Pillai and V.P. Sharma. 1991. Resistance in Anopheles c ulicifacies sibling spec ies B and C to malathion in Andra Pra desh and G ujarat states, I ndia. J ou rn al o f th e Am e ric an Mo sq uito Control Ass ociation 7: 255-259. Rag havendr a, K., K. V asantha , S.K. Subbarao, M.K.K. Pillai and V.P. Sharma. 1992. Diffe rential sele ction of malathion re sistance in Anopheles c ulicifacies A and B in Hay ara

state, India. Journal of Medical Entomology 29: 183-187. Reimer, L .J ., F. Tripet, M. Slot man, A. Spielman, E. F ondjo and G.C. L anzaro. 2005. An unusual distribution of the kdr g ene among populations of Anopheles gambiae on the island of B ioko, Equatorial Guinea
. Insec t Molecular Biology 14: 683-688. Re sh , V .H . andS.S. B a lli ng . 2 00 3. Ti da l c ir c ulatio n a lte ratio n f or sa lt m ars h mosquito control. Environmental Manage ment 7: 79-84. Rios, J ., C.S. Hacker , C.A. Hailey and R.E. Parsons. 2006. De mogr aphic and spatial ana ly sis of West Nile virus and St. L ouis ence phalitis in Houston, Tex as. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 22: 254-263. Risebroug h, R.W . 1986. Pesticides on bird populations. Current Ornithology
. New Y ork: Plenum Press. Ros e , R. I . 2 00 1. Pe sti c ide s a ndpu bli c he a lth : in te g rate d me tho ds of mos qu ito manag ement. Em e rg ing In fe c tio us Di se as e s 7: 17-23. Ruber, E. 1963. The eff

ect of certain mosquito l arvic ides on microcr ustace an populations. Pr

oc e e din gs of t

he 50 An nu al M

e e tin g o f th e Ne w J

e rse y Mo sq uito th Extermination Association. Ruiz , M.O., C. Tedesc o, T.J . McTig he, C. Austin and U. Kitron. 2004. Environmental and soc ial determinants of human risk during a West Nile virus outbreak in the g reater Chicag o are a, 2002. In te rn ati on al J ou rn al o f H e alt h Ge og ra ph ic s 3:8. ( http:// www.ij-he althg eog raphic s.com/content/pdf/1476-072x3-8.pdf )
. Salvato, M.H. 2001. I nfluenc e of mosquito control che micals on butterflies (Nymphalidae, Ly cae nidae, He speriidae ) of the lowe r F lorida Ke y s. Journal of the Le pid op te ris ts’ So c ie ty 55: 8-14. Sanders, H.O ., D.F. Walsh and R.S. Campbell. 1981. Abate: e ffe cts on the org anophosphate insecticide on blue g ills and the invertebr ates in ponds. Tec hnical Paper

104, USDOI , USFWS.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 172 Sanford, M.T. 1998. Hone y bee te chnica l council. APIS , Vol. 16, No. 3. Acc essed Oc tober 12, 2007. ( http:// apis.ifas.ufl.e du/apis98/apmar98.htm#3 )
. Savag e, E.P., T.J . Kee fe, L .W. Mounce, R.K. Heaton, A. L ewis and P.J. Burca r. 1988. Chronic neur ologic al seque lae of acute org anophosphate pesticide poisoning. Arc hiv e s o

f E nv iro nm e nta l H

e alt h 43: 38-45. Sc h n ak e n b e r g , E
. , K
. R. F ab ig , M
. St a n u ll a , N
. St r o b l, M
. Lu s ti g , N
. F ab ig a n dW. Schloot. 2007. A cross-se ctional study of self- reported che mical-re lated sensitivityis associated w ith ge ne variants of drug -metabolizing e nzy mes. En v iro nm e nta l H

e alt h 6: 6. Silapanunatakul, S., S. Pantuwatana, A. B humiratana and K. Char oensiri. 1983. The c omparative persistenc e of toxicityof Bacillus sphaericus strain 1593 and Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is seroty pe H- 14 ag ainst mosquito l arva e in diffe rent kinds of environments. Journal of Inve rtebrate Pathology 42: 387-392. Sparks, D.W. and E.W. Valdez. 2003. Food ha bits of Ny c tin om op s m ac ro tis a t a maternity roost in New Me x ico, as indicated by analy sis of g uano. So uth we ste rn Nat ur ali st 48: 132-135. Sparling , D.W., G.M. Feller s and L .L . McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population declines in California , USA. Environmental Toxicology an d Ch e mi str

y 20: 1591-1595. Stark, J .D. 2005. Environmental and health impacts of the mosquito control ag ent Ag nique, a monomolecula r surfa ce f

ilm. R eport for

New Z ealand Ministry of He alth. Acc essed Oc tober 6, 2006. ( ht tp :/ /w ww. mo h. govt .n z /m oh .n sf/ 0/ C3 8B20 D04 77 98 A8FC C2 57 01 90 07 32 FFE ) Steelman, C.D., T.W. W hite and P.E. Schilling. 1972. Eff ects of mosquitoes on the ave rag e daily

g ain of fe edlot steers in southern L ouisiana. Journal of Economic Entomology 65: 462-466. Steelman, C.D., T.W. W hite and P.E. Schilling. 1973. Eff ects of mosquitoes on the ave rag e daily

g ain of He ref

ord and B rahman bree d steers in southern L ouisiana. Journal EconomicEntomology 66: 1081-1083. Steelman, C.D. 1976. Effe cts of external and internal a rthropod par asites on domestic livestock produc tion. Annual Revie w of Entomology 21: 155-178. Steenland, K. 1996. Chronic ne urolog ical ef fec ts of org anophosphate pesticides. British Medical Journal

312: 1312-1313.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 173 Stevenson, H.R. 1980. A re view of the eff ects of ultra -low volume insecticide treatments to honey

bees, Ap is m e lli

fe ra (L .). Pr

oc e e din gs of t

he Fl or ida An tiMosquito Association 51: 11-14. S t e v e n s o n , J
. 1 9 9 2
. W h a tab o u tt h e i n n o c e n t ? Fl or ida Nat ur ali st . Fa ll: 10-11. Stevenson, J .A. 1991. Public lands issues. In : Emmel, T.C. and J .C. Tucker (Eds.), Mosquito Control Pesti cides: Ecolog ical Impacts and Manag ement Alternatives. Gainesville: Scientific. Su, T. a ndM. S. M ull a . 1 99 9. Mic ro bial a g e nts Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is ssp. isr ae le ns is and Bacillus sphaericus suppress eutr ophication, enhance w ater quality , and contr ol mosquit oes in microcosms. Environmental Entomology 28: 761-767. Subbarao, S.K., K. V asantha and V.P. Sharma. 1988. Response s of Anopheles culicifacies sib lin g sp e c ie s A a ndB to D DT a ndHC H i n Ind ia : impli c a tio ns in malaria control. Medic al and Veterinary Entomology 2: 219-223. Swan, S.H. 2006. Semen quality in fertile US men r elated to g eog raphic al ar ea and pesticide exposure. International Journal of Andrology 29: 62-68. Swan, S.H., C. Bra zil , E.Z . Drobnis, F. Liu, R.L . Kruse, M. H atch, J.B. Redmon, C. W ang and J.W . Over street. TheStudyfor Future F amilies Resear ch Gr oup. 2003. Geog raphic differ ence s in semen quality of fe rtile U.S. males. Environmental He alth Perspective s 111: 414-420. Tag atz, M.E., P.W . Borthwick, G.H. Cook and D .L . Coppag e. 1974. Eff ects of g round application of malathion on salt-marsh e nvironments in northwest Florida. Mo sq uito Ne ws 34: 309-315. Takahashi, R.M., W .H. Wilder and T. Miura. 1984. F ield evaluations of I SA-20E for mosquito control and e ffe cts on aquatic nontarg et arthropods in experimental plots. Mo sq uito Ne ws 44: 363-367. Th ie r, A. 20 01 . B a la nc ing theri sk s: v e c tor c on tr ol andpe sti c ideus e in r e sp on se to emerg ing illness. J

ou rn al o f U rb an He alt

h 78: 372-381. T h o m a s , N
. 1 9 8 1
. E n e m i e s o r a l l i e s ? J ou rn al o f th e Fl or ida An ti- Mo sq uito Association 52: 1-3. Tietze, N.S., J .P. Ruff, C.F. Hallmon, P.G. Hester and K.R. Shaff

er. 1992. Ef

fec t of ULV malathion on automotive paint finishes. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 8: 241-246.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 174 T i et z e, N. S
. , M
. A. Ol s o n , P
. G. He s t eran dJ
. J
. M o o re . 1 9 9 3
. T o l er an ce o f s ew age treatment plant microorg anisms to mosqui tocides. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 9: 477-479. Tietze, N.S., P.G. Hester, M.A. Olson, C.F. H allmon and K.R. Shaffe r. 1995. Acute toxicityof mosquito control compounds to Cy pr ino do n v ar ie ga tus and Menidia bery llina : laboratory and fie ld tests. J

ou rn al o f th e Fl or ida Mo sq uito Control Ass ociation 65: 37-44. Tietze, N.S. and K.R. Shaffe r. 1997. Impacts of Dibr om conce ntrate and three ® new na led formulations on three1996 Du Pont automotive paint finishes. Journal of the American M

osquito Cont rol Association 13: 326-328. Tren, R. and R. Bate . 2000. When politi cs kills: malaria and the DDT story
. Competiti ve Enter

prise Institut e. ( http:// www.c ei.org/PDFs/malaria.pdf )
. USDA (United States De partment of A g riculture) . 2005. 2004 United States Animal Hea lth Report. USDA APHI S Agriculture Information B ulletin No. 798. Fort Coll ins: USDA.

van T hrie l, C ., E. Ki e ssw e tte r, M. Sc ha pe r, S.A . Jur a n, M. B la szke wi c z an d S. Kleinbec k. 2008. Odor annoy anceof environme ntal chemicals: sensory and cog nitive influence s. J

ou rn al o f Tox ic olo gyan d E

nv iro nm e nta l H

e alt h P ar t A 71: 776-785. Vestjens, W.M.J . and L .S. Hall. 1977. Stom ach c ontents of forty -two spec ies of bats from the A ustralasian r eg ion. Australian W ildlif e Re search 4: 25-35. Villari, P., A. Spielman, N. Komar, M. McD owell and R.E. Timperi. 1995. The economic bur den imposed by a re sidual case of ea stern enc ephalitis. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hy giene 52: 8-13. Visit Florida. 2007. Visit Florida Re sear ch. Ac cesse d October 12, 2007. ( http:// media.visitflorida.com/about/re sear ch.php )
.

. Walker, T.J. 2001. Gr

y llu s c ay e ns is n.sp. (Orthopter a: Gryllidae), a taciturn wood cricket extirpated fr om the Florida Key s: songs, e colog y

and hy brids. Fl or ida En tom olo gis t

84: 700-705. Walton, W .E. 2003. Manag ing mosquitoes in surfa ce- flow construc ted treatment wetlands. Unive rsity

of California D ivision of Agriculture and Natura l Resource s Publication 8117. Ware, G.W. 1994. The Pesticide B ook
. Fre sn o, CA : T ho mso n Pu bli c a tio ns .C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 175 Whit e, D.H. and A.J . Krynitsky . 1986. Wil dlife in some ar eas of New Me x ico and Te x as ac cumulate e levated D DE re sidues, 1983. Archive s of Environmental Contaminati on and Toxicology 15: 149-157. Whit eman, H.W., S.A. Wis singe r and W.S. Brow n. 1996. Growth and fora g ing conseque nces of

fac ultative paedomor

phosis in the tiger

salamande r, Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum
. Evolutionary Ecology10: 433-446. WHO (World Health Org anization). 1986a. Organophosphorus Insecticide s: A Gene ral Introduction. En vir on me ntal H e a lthCrite ri a 63 . G e ne va , Wo rl d H e a lth Org anization. WHO (World Health Org anization). 1986b. Carbamate Insec ticides: A Ge neral Introduction. En vir on me ntal H e a lthCrite ri a 64 . G e ne va , Wo rl d H e a lth Org anization. WHO (World Health Org anization). 1989. Resme thrins – Resmethrin, Bioresmethrin, Cisresmethrin. En vir on me ntal H e a lthCrite ri a 92 . G e ne va , Wo rl d Hea lth Org anization. WHO (World Health Org anization). 1999. Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is. Environmental He alth Criteria 217. Ge neva, World He alth Org anization. Wil liams, L .A., J r. 1986. The be nefits of mosquito control. Journal of the Florida Anti-Mosquito Associati on 57: 32-36. Wright, M. 1944a. Some random observations on dra g onfly habits with notes on their pre dace ousness on bee s. Journal of the Tennessee Acade my of Scie nce 19: 295-301. Wright, M. 1944b. Notes on dra g onflies in the vicinity of Ne w Smy

rna B eac h, Florida
. Fl or ida En tom olo gis t 27: 35-39. Z hong , H., M. L atham, P.G. Heste r, R. L . Fr ommer and C. B rock. 2003. I mpact of Ae ri a l A pp lie d U ltr a -L ow -V olu me I ns e c tic ideNa le d w ithF lat- F a n N ozzle Sy stem on Honey

bees Survival and Productivity
. Archive s of Environmental Contaminati on and Toxicology 45: 216-220. Z hong , H., M. L atham, S. Pay ne and C. B rock. 2004. Minimizi ng the impact of the mosquito insecticide naled on hone y bee, Ap is m e lli

fe ra (Hymenoptera : Apidae) : aerial ultra-low- volume application using a hig h-pre ssure nozzl e sy stem. Journal of Economic E

ntomology 97: 1-7. Z ohrabian, A., M.I . Meltzer, R. Ratard, K. B illah, N.A. Molinari, K. Roy , R.D. Scott I I and L . R. Petersen. 2004. West Nile virus ec onomic impact, L ouisiana, 2004. Emerging Infe ctious Diseases 10: 1736-1744.C hapt er 9: M os qui t o C ont rol R i s k s and B en ef i t s Page 176 Z ulkosky , A.M., J .P. Rugg ieri, S.A. Tar rac ianno, B .J . Br ownawe ll and A.E. McElroy . 2005. Acute toxicityof re smethrin, malathion and methopre ne to larva l and juvenile Ame rican lobsters and analy sis of pesticide leve ls in surfacewater s afte r Scourg eTM, AnvilTM, and AltosidTM application. J ou rn al o f Sh e llf ish Researc h 24: 795-804.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 177 

## Chap ter 10 INS ECTIC IDE R ESIS TANC E MANAGEMENT

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : D r . J a c k P e te r s e n a n d D r . C h e ls e a S m a r tt 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : D r. E ri c Schre i ber

Summ ary This chapter discusses deve lopment of resistance to insecticide s and best managem ent practice s to maintain effi cacyof chemic al means for mosquito control. Topics covere d are the: 1) history of insecticide re sistance in Florida mosquitoes, 2) definition of genetic inse cticide re sistance, 3) resistance me chanisms, 4) me tho ds to d

e te c t in se c tic ide re sis tan c e in b oth lar v ae an d a du lt mosquitoes, 5) current rese arch, and 6) practical strategies for resistance ma na ge me nt.



### 10 . 1 INTRODUCTION Deve lopment of resistanc e to insecticide s is a potential threat to any long te rm mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g ram. Likepo pu latio ns of a ll l ivi ng or g a nis ms, mos qu ito po pu latio ns aredynamic , r e sp on din g to s e le c tiv e pr e ssu re . T he c ha lle ng e to mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams i s to stay a fe w s te ps ahe a d o f the targ e t sp e c ie s’ ability to defe at control e fforts. I nsecticide resistanc e can be mitigated in a number of w ay s including g reater re liance on Integ rate d Pest Manag ement (IPM), the deve lopment of better me thods of resistanc e dete ction and monitoring , and improved mana g ement of insec ticide re sistant populations t hroug h better coordination among mosquito control prog rams, state a g encie s, university and g ov e rn me nt s c ie nti sts , andins e c tic idema nu fa c tur e rs . 

### 10. 2 HISTO R Y OF INSE C TIC IDE RE SISTA N C E IN FL ORIDA MOSQUITOE S I ns e c tic idere sis ta nc e de ve lop e d s ho rt ly a ft e r the e arl ie st atte mpt s at la rg e -s c a le chemical control in ag riculture, and there is a long history on this subject. See Appendix I I I . I n 1993, Br eaud published a revie w of scie ntific literatureon insecticide r esistance in Florida mosquitoes (B reaud 1993). This section is based on that r e po rt
.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 178

The ra pid development of r esistance to the org anochlorine insecticide , dichlorodipheny l-trichloroe thane ( DDT), shortly afte r its introduction during World War I I , has bee n well documente d. DDT wa s first used for mosquito control in Florida in 1 94 3. Du ri ng a ndimm e diate ly fo llo wi ng Wor ld Wa

r II , F lorida

mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams r e lie d a lmo st e xclu siv e ly on DD T f

or mos qu ito c on tr ol. Th is ov e r- de pe nd e nc y

qu ic kly le d to re sis ta nc e to D DT , and , s ub se qu e ntl y , to die ldrin resistanc e. In 1947 the black sa ltmarsh mosquito, Ae de s ta e nio rh y nc hu s, be g a n to show resistanc e to DDT ( Br own 1986). The re sponse to this problem was to look for c hemical a lternatives to DDT
. During the 1950s, Florida mosquito control prog rams utiliz ed a dif fer ent class of insecticides, the or g anophosphate s (OP), which w ereshown to be more e ffe ctive than DDT. B y

1963, the OPs malathion and nale d had re place d DDT a s the adulticides of c hoice. A f ew y ear s later, Ga

han et al . ( 19 66 ) r e po rt e d p oo r r e su lts with aerially

applied malathion for

the control of Ae. tae nio rh y nc hu s in L ee C o u n t y. In l ab o r a t o ry s t u d i e s , G l a n c e y et al . (1966) c onfirmed the de velopment of re sistance to malathion showing that it took ten tim es the ba seline amount of 50 ma lathi on to a c hie ve theme dian le thal c on c e ntr a tio n ( L C ) w ithsu sc e pti ble 90 mosquitoes and thirteen times the base line to obtain the L C , the conc entration at which 90% of

a population dies. This ac count was the first published report of malathion resistanc e in Florida. I n th e la st f

ou r d e c a de s, the rewe refe w c on fi rm e d in c ide nc e s o f m os qu ito resistanc e to other O P adulticides (chlorpy rifos, fe nthion, naled) or to c arbamates in Florida, de spite their extensive usag e. Furthermor e, re sistance ha s not preve nted the continued useof OP insecticides in F lorida, whe re toler anceor re sis ta nc e te nd s to be loc a lize d andno t a g e ne ral or

wi de sp re a d p he no me na . T his situatio n is pr ob ably

a dir e c t r e su lt o f the a do pti on of F lorida ’s po lic y

in the late 1960s to restrict the use of a c lass of insecticide s to either adulticiding or larviciding , but not both. The synthetic py

rethroid r esmethrin, synerg ized with piperony l butox ide (PBO ), wa s in tr od uc e d inthe19 70 s inpa rt to c on tr ol m a lathi on -r e sis ta nt m os qu ito e s, followed late r by

sy nerg ized permethrin and sumithrin (d-phe nothrin) produc ts. At pr e se nt, py

re thr oid s a

rethec he mic a l tr e a tme nt o f c ho ic e fo r g ro un d a du lt mos qu ito c on tr ol i n F lorida . T o d a te (2 00 6) , n o d oc ume nte d r e po rt s o f p yre thr oid resistanc e neg atively

impacting mosquito control in Florida havebeen published. Howeve r, permethrin resistanc e has be en re ported in Culex mos qu ito e s in California (Mc Abee et al . 2 00 4) a ndis s us pe c te d e lse wh e re . L abo ratory te sts 50 conducte d at Auburn U niversity , Alabama , have doc umented ele vated L C values for mosquitoes from the Southea stern United States (Liu et al. 2004, 2006). Eterna l vigilanc e is in order
. Al tho ug h o ve r thr e e de c a de s o f l arv ic idi ng wi th t e me ph os (Abate ) i n L e e Cou nty ® and other Florida districts has not led to resistance to this OP insecticide, resistanc e to an insec t gr owth reg ulator, methopre ne, wa s documented in anChapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 179

isolated saltmarsh habitat of L ee County

following the long -term use (150-day ) of briquets for c ontrol of Ae . ta e nio rh y nc hu s (Dame et al. 1998)
. 

### 1 0 . 3 DEF I NI TI ON OF RE SI ST ANCE I nsecticide resistanc e is define d as the g enetic r esponse of a population of mosquitoes that enables some membe rs of that population to survive e x posure to a c he mic a l th a t w ou ld p ro ve le thal to a su sc e pti blepo pu latio n ( WHO 19 92 ). Th is definition distinguishes insecticide resistanc e fr om treatment failures that may result from any

number of othe r problems such a s operator err or, formulation e rr or , e qu ipm e nt f

a ilu re , e tc . T his de fi nitionis v ita lly imp orta nt b e c aus e it enable s the establishment of standa rdized proce dures f

or the e arly

detec tion of insecticide r esistance . Wit hout standardized proc edure s, meaning ful comparisons arenot possible. I nsecticide resistanc e orig inates in the g enetic va riability of an insec t population. Mutations give rise to some individuals with an enhanc ed ability to survive e xpos ur e to c he mic a ls that w ou ld kill fu lly su sc e pti bleind ivi du a ls. I ns e c tic idere sis ta nc e is i nh e ri te d. Th e ba sic g e ne tic me c hanis ms a rewe ll understood. Ge nes ar e the units of inheritance. A lternative f orms of g enes a

re called alleles. The r esistant allele may be either rec essive (a s in certain DDTre sis ta nt m os qu ito e s) or

do min a nt ( a s inor g a no ph os ph a te re sis ta nc e ). Som e a lle le s a rec o- do min a nt, a ndthere sis ta nt- su sc e pti blehy brids areint e rm e diate in susceptibility(as in dieldrin re sistance) . Resistance inc rea ses in the population when susce ptible alleles ar e sele ctively remove d by

insecticide tre atments, leaving an incr ease d proportion of re sistant alleles. Proportionally more e g g s of re sistant mosquitoes hatch than those of susc eptible fe males of the ta rg et population under se le c tiv e pr e ssu refr om c he mic a l in se c tic ide s. 

### 1 0 . 4 RE S I S T AN CE ME CH AN I S MS F ou r m a jor c la sse s o f i ns e c tic ide s h a ve be e n u se d to c on tr ol a du lt m os qu ito e s:

• chlorinate d hy droca

rbons (DD T and dieldrin) [no l ong er use d in Florida]
• car bamates ( car

baryl and propoxur)
• org anophosphate s (malathion and na led)
• pyrethrins/py

rethroids [natural py

rethrin, pe rmethrin, re smethrin, and sumithrin (d - phenothrin)] Eac h class has a

particula r mode of a ction, so various mec hanisms of resistanc e may op e rate . Sp e c if

ic ty pe s o f r e sis ta nc e are : be ha vio ral, m e ta bo lic , ta rg e t si te insensitivit y , and cr oss resistance
.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 180

10.4.1 Behavioral Resistance Gene tic variation in behavior may contribute to re sistance by enabling the mosquito t o avoid contac t with the insecticide. When re sting surf ace s are treated with pesticide, some mosquitoes in the targ et population may never contac t the tr e a te d a re a . T his dif

fe re nc e in e xpos ur e a lte rs su rv ival r a te s o f the ne xt mos qu ito g ener ation and may

incre ase the allele f

reque ncy of the g enetic f

actor s contributing to the avoidanc e behavior. Over time, fewe r and f

ewe r mosquitoes wi ll b e kil le d b y

thepe sti c ide . T his ty

pe of re sis ta nc e is m os t c omm on in the c a se of ins e c tic ide -t

re a te d s ur fa c e s.
10.4.2 Met abolic Resistance De toxif y ing e nzyme s p re se nt i n mo sq uit oe s, su c h a s th e oxida se s a nde ste ra se s, may inactivate an insecticide be fore it can kill the mosquito. Mi x ed func tion ox idases (MFO s), in g ener al, dea ctivate py rethroids. Ester ases a

re r esponsible for detoxi fying or g anophosphate s, such as malathion. S y nergi st s l ik e P BO wo rk b y defe ati ng th e mo sq ui to ’s d eto x if yin g enz y mes . P BO is not an insecticide at the dose it is applied, but toge ther with the a ctive ingr edient (A I ), re duces the mosquito’s abilit y to detox ify

the insecticide , there by making the AI

more e ffe ctive. Sy nerg ists can be use d experimentally to detect the m e c h a n i s mo f

r e s i s t a n c e . F o r

e x a m p l e , i f

t h e s yn e r g i s tD E F( S , S , S , - tr i b u t yl phosphorotrithioate – a de foliant) or TPP (triphenyl phosphate) incr ease s su scep ti bi li ty , t hen est eras es ar e th e me chan is m o f res is tan ce. I f add it io n o f P BO incre ases susce ptibili ty , then MFO s are the mechanism of resistance
. 10.4.3 Target SiteInsensi tivity Or g a no ph os ph a te a ndc arb a mate ins e c tic ide s w or k b y inh ibi tin g thee nzyme ace ty lcholinestera se. Some mosquito species have develope d insecticide re sis ta nc e by

str uc tur a l mo dif

ic a tio n o f a c e ty lc ho lin e ste ra se so that it is l e ss s e n s i t i v e t o t h e i n s e c t i c i d e . In o r d e r f o r t h i s t yp e o f

i n s e c t i c i d e t o w o rk

p r o p e r l y, it mus t atta c h to thetarg e t mo le c ulewh ic h is a c e ty lc ho lin e ste ra se . G e ne tic modification of the sha

pe of the ace ty lcholinestera se molecule preve nts proper attachme nt and re sults in resistance. Pyrethroids wor

k by interfe ring with the normal func tion of the nervemembrane
. Be causepyrethroids tar g et the nervous sy stem they possess rapid “ knock-dow n” capa bility . I n order

to be ef fec tive, pyrethroids must bind with certain molecular structure s on the nervesurfa ce c alled sodium channe ls. Genetic va riation may lead to alter ed molecula

r surfa ce struc tures, or a ltered “ targ et sites.” Mosquitoes wi th the se a lte re d ta

rg e t si te s may

no t bekil le d w ithpy

re thr oidins e c tic ide s. Th is type of a ltered ta

rg et site resistanc e is also known as “ knockdown r esistance ,” or kdr , which re duces thee ff e c tiv e ne ss o f n a tur a l py

re thrins a ndthesynth e tic py re thr oid s.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 181

10.4.4 Cross Re sistance Se le c tio n p re ssu reon a

mos qu ito po pu latio n b y

on e sp e c if

ic ins e c tic idemay

re su lt in resistanceto other insecticide s to which the population has not bee n exposed. Th is ty pe of c ro ss- re sis ta nc e is m os t c omm on a mon g ins e c tic ide s th a t be lon g to thesa me c la ss. Ho we ve r, c ro ss c la ss r e sis tanc e ha s b e e n r e po rt e d in , f or e xamp le : 1) targ et-site DDT -py

rethroid r esistance in the malaria vector , Anopheles gambiae and 2) c arbamate-or g anophosphate cross re sistance in Centra l American Anopheles albimanus . I n both of these c ases, a simil ar mode of ac tion contributed to the cross re sistance. DD T and py rethroids tar g et the sodium and potassium channe ls of the nerve membrane. Carbamates and or g anophosphate s work by inhibiti ng the enzy me ac ety lcholinestera se. 

### 1 0 . 5 DET ECT I ON OF RE SI ST ANCE I nsecticide resistanc e is often f irst observed in the f

ield as a f ailure to c ontrol the targ e t po pu latio n w itha

do sa g e app lie d at th e la

be l r a te . T he ne xt ste p is to r ule out treatment failure due to ope rator e rror , equipment failure, unfa vorable weather c on dition s, fo rmulatio n e rr or , f a ilu reto e xpos e (h it) thetarg e t po pu latio n, or so me oth e r n on -g e ne tic c aus e . T o c on fi rm g e ne tic re sis ta nc e , it

is e sse nti a l to te st a sample of the ta

rg et population by

means of a

standardized test in the laboratory
. Me tho ds fo r s us c e pti bil ity -r e sis ta nc e te sts ha ve be e n s ta nd ard ize d b y theWor ld H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n ( W H O 1 9 8 1 ) f o r b o t h l ar v a l a n da d u l tm o s q u i t o e s . In addition, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ha ve deve loped rapid diag nostic tests that can provide useful information to operational control pr og rams ( CD C 20 02 ). B ioa ssay s a ndbio c he mic a l te sts areus e d to de te c t g e ne tic insecticide r esistance and to establish the median le thal conce ntration.
10.5.1 Median Lethal Concentration 50 Th e me dian le thal c on c e ntr a tio n ( L C ) i s th e qu a nti ty of a n in se c tic idepe r u nit vo lum e of

so lve nt ( e.g ., microg rams of A I /ml of ACS acetone) that kills 50% of 50 thete st s a mpl e . T he L C is e sti mate d b y c on du c tin g re pli c a te d d os e re sp on se 50 bio a ssay s. I n d os e re sp on se bio a ssay s th e L C is d e te rm ine d b y e xpos ur e to sever al dilutions of actual insec ticide not just a single dia g nostic dose. A corr ectly desig ned dose r esponse bioassay usually includes five or mor e diffe rent AI c on c e ntr a tio ns se le c te d to ob ta in mortalities betwee n 10% and 90% (Robertson and Preisler

1991). A statistical test ca lled probit analy sis (Finney 1971) is then 50 used with the re sulting data to estimate the L C and other values, such a s the 95 95 L C , toge ther with the a

ppropriate confide nce limits. The L C value is important 95 be c aus e do ub lin g theL C is o ne me tho d o f e sta bli sh ing thedia g no sti c do se . The dia g no sti c do se is a

pr e de te rm ine d in se c tic idec on c e ntr a tio n kno wnto b e le thal to a hig h proportion of susce ptible mosquit oes but not to a hig h proportion of re sis ta nt i nd ivi du a ls.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 182

10.5.2 Bioassay A bioassay

uses live mosquito larvae or adults to determine the r esponse to known conce ntrations of an insec ticide under controlled c onditions. The bioassay incorporates sufficie nt replication to estim ate e x perimenta l error acc urate ly . Two bioassay s used in Florida arethe: 1. bottle bioassay , which mea sures the r esponse of adult mosquitoes ov e r time to a

sin g le dia g no sti c do se 2. stand ardbe ake r t e st, wh ic h me a su re s th e re sp on se of mos qu ito larva e to diffe rent c oncentr ations of an insec ticide Measuring Insecticide Resistance by the B ottle Bioassay

(Peterse n 2004) in the Florida Mosquito C ontrol Handbook is a c hapter on standardized methods for the bottle bioassay . An advantag e of the bottle bioassay is that it can be modified by adding sy nerg ists to i nhibit the detox ification enzy mes and e x pose the nature of the re sistance. Be aker tests wereemploy ed during the Florida Abate (temephos) monitoring ® prog ram of the 1980s conducte d by Boike et al . (1982). The se long -term studies made a signific ant contribution to insecticide r esistance manag ement by establishing a

convention that fa cilitated comparison of data f rom diffe rent tests. Boike et al . (1982, 1985) define d the re sistance r atio (R/R) as the median le thal 50 50 c on c e ntr a tio n ( L C ) f

or thete st s tr a in d ivi de d b y theL C of

thesu sc e pti ble str a in. Re sis ta nc e ratio s a reno w u su a lly

c a lc ulate d at th e me dian le thal do se s, 50 95 LD a ndLD , o f the te st p op ulatio ns . Re sis ta nc e ratio s ma ke it muc h e a sie r t o c o m p ar e p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e i r i n s e c t i c i d e s u s c e p t i b i l i t y.
10.5.3 Biochem ical test s B ioc he mic a l a ssay s c a n d e te c t r e sis ta nc e me c hanis ms i n s ing le mos qu ito e s, enabling resistanc e monitoring when only a small sample size is available. F or e xamp le , b ioc he mic a l a ssay s to de te c t ta rg e t si te re sis ta nc e me a su rec hang e s in the af finity of ac etylcholinestera se (the ta rg et of org anophosphate s and car bamates) to its subs trate r esulting f rom the alter ation of the amino acids responsible for

insecticide binding at its site of action (B rog don and McA llist er 1998a). A cetylcholinestera se ac tivitycan bemeasure d using a cetylthiocholine iod idea s a

su bs tr a te a ndme a su ri ng there le a se d th iol c olo ri me tric a lly a t a sp e c if ic abs or banc e (Gra ft on -C ard we ll et al . 2004). Chang es in the af finity of a c e ty lc ho lin e ste ra se fr om the re sis ta nt s tr a in c omp are d to thesu sc e pti blestr a in ind ic a te that r e sis ta nc e is d ue to m od if ie d a c e ty lc ho lin e ste ra se activity
. Re sis ta nc e by

de toxif ic a tio n o f the ins e c tic ideinc lud e s me a su ri ng c hang e s in protein leve ls or activity

of enzy matic member s of a lar g e multige ne familyofChapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 183

estera ses, oxi dases, and g lutathione-S-transf era se. The bioc hemical analy sis can be mea sured using a microtiter plate and a spectrophotomete r. The most common resistanc e mec hanisms in insects are estera se detoxification enzy mes that metabolize a broa d spectrum of insecticides ( Br og don and Mc Al lis te r 1 99 8b ). Re du c tio n inins e c tic idesu sc e pti bil ity may be du e to chang ing a

single amino acid, r esulting in the c onversion of an este rase to an insecticide hy drolase. T he modification may result, also, in the pre senceof multipl e este rase g enes that have be en a mpl if ie d to pr od uc e nu me ro us c op ie s in re sis ta nt i ns e c ts. I nc re a se in e ste ra se a c tiv ity c a n in dic a te re sis ta nc e to org anophosphate s or cr oss resistanceto OP, carbamates, and py rethroids (B rog don and McA llist er 1998a ; Vulule et al . 1999). Detoxification of insecticides is also a f unction of cytochrome P450 oxi dase, including monooxy g enase s or mix ed func tion ox idases. Oxidases responsible for insecticide r esistance result from incr ease d conce ntration rathe r than g ene amplification. Hig h ox idase meta bolic activity , for e x ample, has be en implicated i n p er m et h ri n E C t o l er an ce (E t an g et al . 2004). Glutathione-S-transfer ase ( GST) e xists in i ns e c t g e no me s a s mu lti plec op ie s o f o ne of thec la sse s o f g lut a thi on e -s transfe rase . GST has bee n implicated in DDT re sistance and exis ts as g ene clusters scattered throug hout theins e c t g e no me via re c omb inatio n. I n f

a c t, mul tip le fo rm s o f G ST i n th e sa me ins e c t have be e n f ou nda nd imp lic a te d in resistanc e (F err ari 1996).


### 1 0 . 6 CURRE NT RES EAR CH Detec tion of insecticide r esistance commonly relies on r esults from one or more of the following techniques: WHO bioassay kit, CDC bot tle bioassay , and biochemica l assay s (for e sterase , GST and monoox y g enase ). F or example, using a bo ttl e bio a ssay

fo r a du lt m os qu ito e s a ndbe ake r t e sts fo r l arv a e , Paul et al
. (2005) investig ated susce ptibili ty of Culex pipiens from 2 sites in New Y ork to 4 larvicide s [m ethopre ne, sumithrin (d-phenothrin), Bacillus sphaericus and Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is ( Bt i ) and oneadulticide, sumithrin (d phenothrin)]. The bioassay reve aled low leve ls of resistanc e to all insecticide s and a high le vel of re sistance to Bt i in one strain of Cx. pipiens . The investig ators c on c lud e d th a t it

is f e a sib le to u se thebio a ssay to m on ito r i ns e c tic idere sis ta nc e in Cx. pipiens in New Yor

k. And, bec ause of

the hig h level of Bt i resistanc e, the sc op e of re sis ta nc e mon ito ri ng sh ou ld b e wi de ne d inNe w Y or k a re a in o rd e r t o ide nti fy po pu latio ns wh os e re sis ta nc e ph e no ty pe c ou ld c omp ro mis e mos qu ito c on tr ol e ff

orts. I n the laboratory , Tao et al . (2006) se lected a malathion-re sistant strain of Cx. pipiens palens and then teste d the sy nerg istic effe ct of iprobe nfos on malathion tox icity . CDC bottl e bioassay s and ester ase a ssay s showed that malathion re sis ta nc e wa s a sso c iate d w ithinc re a se d e ste ra se a c tiv ity . Pr e se nc e of ipr ob e nf os ,Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 184

the sy nerg ist, resulted in a dec rea se in ester ase a ctivity due to its inhibi tion of estera se ac tivity . Estera se ac tivitywas hig her in a dult females f rom the malathion-re sistant strain than in their larva l counterpa rts. The re sults from exposure of a c ross of malathion-r esistant and susce ptible strains reve aled that malathion resistanc e leve ls in the strain exposed to malathion alone wer e much hig he r than th e str a in e xpos e d to ma lathi on a ndipr ob e nf os . E ste ra se a c tiv ity

a lso was hig her in the ma lathion expos ed strain, with adult mosquitoes exhibi ting highe r ester ase a ctivity

than larva e. The study

sug g ests that althoug h iprobenfos cannot stop or pr event malathion resistance , it could delay its evolution. The de tection of re sistance by measuring chang es in targ et sites or detoxify ing enzy mes has not dra stically chang ed over

the past y ear s. However, the de tection of kdr to pyrethroids ha s becomemodernized and a number of a dvance s have been ma de. The primary

targ et of py

rethroid insec ticides is the voltag e-g ated sodium channel (N arahashi 1996; Sattelle and Yamamoto 1988). I nsensitivityof the sodium channe l to pyrethroids wa s found to result from knoc kdown re sistant insect spec ies that exhibi ted a sing le nucleotide polymorphism in the sodium channe l (Kniple et al . 1994; Wi lliamson et al . 1993). The de tection of the po lymor ph ism , n ow c omm on ly

pe rf orme d u sin g a

mul tip le x Polyme ra se Chain Re a c tio n ( PCR) (M artine z-T or re s et al . 1 99 8) , h a s b e e n impr ov e d ( Ko la c zins ki et al . 2000) with a simple PCR ampli fication followed by probing with a seque nce specific oligonuc leotide primer ( PCR -SSOP). But this method has not been extensivelyused , p er h ap s d u e t o t h e a d d i t i o n al t i m e- co n s u m i n g h i gh t ec h n o l o gy hy bridization st ep. A hot lig ation oligonuc leotide assay (HOLA) de veloped by Ly nd et al ., (2005) use s low technolog y to detect positive kdr

mutations by y ie ldi ng a brig ht b luec olo r, wh e re a s n on -mutant n e g a tiv e s r e ma in c olo rl e ss. Th is technique is re liable, very sensitive, and re quires only basic labor atory

equipment and skills that can be available in low tec hnology , developing world laboratories bu t r e qu ir e s mo retim e a ndis m or e e xpe ns ive . T ri pe t et al . (2006) ha ve desc ribed a ne w PC R te c hn iqu e that us e s tw o f luo re sc e nc e -l abe le d p ri me rs to e na ble detec tion of the kdr

allele using a seque ncer , maxi miz ing amplification eff iciency a n da l l e v i a t i n g p r o b l e m s r e s u l t i n g f r o mp o o r D N A q u a l i t y. Knockdown r esistance was de tected in An op he le s a ra bie ns is fo r the fi rs t ti me using f luoresce nce r esonanc e ene rg y transfe r/melt curve analy sis (FRET/MCA) (Ve rhae g hen et al . 2006). The me lting curve of e ach kdr mut a tio n a lle le is dif fe re nt andlow e r than th e wi ld type a lle le , andc a n b e us e d to dis tin g uis h homozy g ous and hete rozy g ous mosquitoes. This m ethod can detec t both kdr alleles in one a ssay . FRET/MCA is sensitive, reliable and is able to detec t new g enoty pes. Ve rhae g hen et al . (2006) use d FRET/MCA to determine the prese nce of the Ea st African kdr

mutation in East African An . a ra bie ns is specimens. Additionally , four An. gambiae s .s . mosquitoes were found to posses both the West and East African kdr a l l e l e s , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 185

A method to detec t the kdr mutations at low freque ncy was de veloped by

Kulkarni et al . (2006). Themethod uses PCR and product visualization us ing se quence specific oligonuc leotide probe s (SSOP) in an enzy me-linked immunosorbent as s ay(E L I S A)
. Iti s ra p i d , re l i ab l e, an da c o s t -e ff ec t i v e w ayt o s cr ee n a l ar ge nu mbe r o f i nd ivi du a ls. SSO Ps w e rede sig ne d f or simult a ne ou s d e te c tio n o f E a st and West Afric an kdr

mut a tio ns . U sin g theSSO P- ELI SA a ssay , Kulk arn i et al
. (2006) de tected the West African kdr mut a tio n intw o h e te ro zy g ou s mo sq uit oe s in a population of An . a ra bie ns is from Ea st Africa
. Th e se a ndoth e r a dv a nc e s, c ou ple d w iththeno w s ta nd ardapp ro a c he s li ke bo ttl e bioassay , probit analy sis of exposure to selected c oncentr ations, and dete ction of enzy matic ac tivity , provide a wider a rray of tools for re sistance de tection and ma na g e me nt.


### 1 0 . 7 ST RAT EG I ES OF RE SI ST ANCE MANAG EME NT This section is based on Ge org hiou (1983). M ana ge m e nt

by M ode r ation :

• Use the lowe st dosag e that g ives control, sparing a portion of the su sc e pti bletarg e t po pu latio n. Th is p ra c tic e do e s n ot s e e k c omp le te c on tr ol andc on se rv e s su sc e pti blea lle le s inthemos qu ito population.

• O v e r - d o s i n g e x e rt s m o r e s e l e c t i v e p r e s s u r e t h a n u n d e r - d o s i n g . In oth e r w or ds , a

pp lying too muc h p e sti c ide , to o f re qu e ntl y , w ill result in more ra

pid selection for

insecticide r esistance . Apply ing too little pe sti c idemay

no t e ff e c tiv e ly c on tr ol the targ e t sp e c ie s, but it i s not likely

to speed up the pr ocess of insecticide r esistance
. Howeve r, whe n dealing with vector spe cies during periods of active pathoge n transmission, under-dosing should be avoided beca use of the likelihood of e nhancing transmission. I n this reg ard, wi tho ut i n- de ptha sse ssm e nt i n th e la bo ra tory , it is n ot p os sib le to pr e dic t w hic h s pe c ie s h a ve g e ne tic me c hanis ms t o r e sp on d to insecticide se lection pre ssure.

• A p p l y i n s e c t i c i d e l e s s f r e q u e n t l y.

• Use c hemicals of short environmental pe rsistence
.

• Rot a te c he mic a ls o f d if fe re nt c la sse s.

• Av oidslo w- re le a se fo rmulatio ns .

• Us e loc a lize d r a the r than a re a -w ideapp lic a tio ns .Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 186

• L eavesome mosquito gene rations untreated.

• Preserve “r efug ia” of

susceptible mosquitoes (see section 10.7.1).

• Consider ac ceptance of a hig her pe st population threshold before applying inse cticide.
M ana ge m e nt

by M ult ipleAt ta c k:

• Us e mixtu re s o f c he mic a ls o f d if fe re nt c la sse s.

• Suppress detoxi fication mechanisms by use of synerg ists, such as PBO.

• Alternate or rotate use of inse cticides of dif fer ent classe s every

2-4 y ear s for an entire se ason.

• Use diff

ere nt classes of inse cticides for adulticiding and l ar v i ci d i n g.
10 .7 .1 M ana ge m e nt

by I nt e gr at e d P e st

M ana ge m e nt I nteg rate d Pest Manag ement (IPM) is the prudent combination of c ontrol methods desig ned to minimiz e over -re liance on any single means of c ontrol. The ef fec t of I PM is t o minimi ze expos ure of targ et spec ies to a g iven class of pesticides. For example, mos qu ito e s th a t sh ow e vid e nc e of re sis ta nc e to O P in se c tic ide s still show hig h levels of susce ptibili ty to Bt i . Take advanta g e of this diffe rential s u s ce p t i b l e b y

u s i n g Bt i ag ainst the larva e whe re f easible, e liminating the use of OP larvicides, and reduc ing the use of OP adulticides. This a pproac h illust rate s another principle of e ffe ctive re sistance mana g ement: diffe rent c ontrol strateg ies s h o u ldb e d ir e c te dto th e d if f e r e n t l if e s ta g e s o f

th e mo s q u it o ino r d e r

to mi n im iz e selec tive pressure
. Another e ffe ctive strate g y is to maintain “ref

ug ia” of susceptible mosquitoes. Refug ia ar e ar eas in whic h the targ et population remains untreated. T he fundame ntal conce pt here is that mosquit oes that ar e not exposed to pesticides will maintain high leve ls of susceptible allele s and low leve ls of resistant allele s. Susceptible mosquitoes usually have hig her biotic potential, whic h enable s them to be more suc cessf

ul and live long er than resistant mosquitoes. Thus, they can reduc e the pr oportion of re sistant allelles when they migr ate f rom ref ug ia andChapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 187

inf iltrate re sis ta nt p op ulatio ns . St a te a ndF e de ral land s, wh e repe sti c ideus e is prohibited, eff

ectively function as r efug ia.


### 1 0 . 8 RES I ST ANCE S URV EI LL ANCE Th e ma in d e fe ns e a g a ins t in se c tic idere sis ta nc e is c los e su rv e ill a nc e of mos qu ito susceptibilityto pesticides. Insecticide application methodolog y should include reg ular mea surement of

targ et insect susce ptibili ty . Early diag nosis improves lon g -t e rm pr og no sis
. 

### 1 0 . 9 ST ATE - WID E R ES I ST ANCE MANAG EME NT P ROG RAM Since 1999 the F lorida Ag riculture and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Public He alth Entomology Resear ch and E ducation Center (P HE REC ) h a s c oll abo rate d w ithF lorida mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams t o e sta bli sh standardized proc edure s for mea suring insecticide r esistance by means of the bottle bioassay . These pr ocedur es havebeen c ompiled into a chapter in the Florida Mosquito C ontrol Handbook (Peterse n 2004). The objec tives of the PHEREC ext ension/outreac h prog ram for Florida areto:

• Empower mosquito control prog rams to monitor on a reg ular ba sis the effic acy

of the insec ticides they

use. The objective is to detec t the development of insecticide re sis ta nc e be fo rethe rearetr e a tme nt f a ilu re s.

• Es ta bli shthedia g no sti c do se fo r e a c h in se c tic ideus e d to c on tr ol a du lt andlarv a l mo sq uit oe s.

• Establish baseline susce ptibili ty data f or mosquito species of public hea lth importance.

• S t an d ar d i z e m et h o d s o f i n s ec t i ci d e s u s ce p t i b i l i t y t es t i n g.

• I mplement sustainable pest mana g ement strate g ies that ma int a in e ff

ic a c y fo r m os qu ito c on tr ol.

• Communi cate these finding s at reg ional and national me e tin g s. Pub lis h a

rtic le s, inc lud ing te c hn ic a l r e po rt s, us ing theint e rn e t, p ri nt m e dia , andpe e r- re vie we d jo urna ls.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 188



### 1 0 . 1 0 F UTU RE RES EAR CH Futurerese arc h eff

orts should focus on deve loping biolog ical assay s that can dis tin g uis h amon g re sis ta nc e me c hanis ms r apid ly . Re se arc he rs a t th e Un ive rs ity of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es, F lorida Medical Entomology

L aboratory

(F MEL ) ar e deve loping a multipl ex quantitative Real Time Poly mera se Chain Reac tion (RT-PCR ) assay to determine insec ticide resistanc e/tolerance status by detec ting c hang es in the quantity of ester ase, oxida se , andGSTme ssa g e s ina sin g le mos qu ito or

mos qu ito po ols , simult aneously . Utiliz ation of this assay should decre ase the cumber some nature of tr a dition a l r e sis tanc e de te c tio n, e na bli ng a mor e ra pidre sp on se by

mos qu ito control prog rams and pr ovide spec ific information about which re sistance me c hanis m is be ing uti lize d th us e na bli ng ra pidre sp on se wi th the app ro priate insecticide. I mpr ov ing themos qu ito c idal natur e of tr a dition a l c he mic a ls o r b iol og ic a l a g e nts should also be the foc us of future rese arc h. Resear ch into combined contr ol strateg ies – using c hemical and biological ag ents simultaneously – is imperative. The mix ed contr ol strateg y approa ch should impede the e stablishment of any single insecticide- resistant population. Deve lopment of alternatives to the traditional che mical control should be a priority . One suc h alternative strateg y , as su g g e ste d b y

tw o in de pe nd e nt s tud ie s, is the us e of e nto mop a tho g e nic fu ng i in mosquito control (Blanf

ord et al . 2005; Scholte et al . 2005). B oth investigations fo un d th a t mo sq uit oe s w ithfu ng a l in fe c tio ns e xhibi te d r e du c e d tr a ns mis sio n r a te s, re du c e d a bil ity of theinf e c te d f e ma le mos qu ito e s to blo odfe e d, a nd , a bo ve a ll, re du c e d mo sq uit o s urviv a l.


### 10 . 11 CONC LUSI ON Th e app lic a tio n o f c he mic a l in se c tic ide s is thema ins tay of mos qu ito abate me nt i n F lorida . It is e sse nti a l th a t g re a t c areis t ake n to ma int a in e ff ic a c iou s, c os teff ective, and safe control methods. Monitoring f or insecticide resistanc e on a reg ular ba sis can provide early warning, so that corre ctive mea sures c an be ta ken. Use of alternative c lasses of a ctive ing redie nt, increa sed larvic iding with Bt i and other biorational techniques, sourc e re duction, rotation of che mical classe s, and mechanical contr ol measure s all contribute to sound manag ement pra ctices that wi ll r e su lt i n s us taina

blema int e nanc e of

su c c e ssf ul m os qu ito c on tr ol.


### 1 0 . 1 2 REF ERE NCE S AND G ENE RAL RE ADI NG Blan for d, S ., B.H. Ch an, N. J enk in s, D. S im , R .J . T urn er, A .F. Re ad an d M .B. Thomas. 2005. Fung al pathog en re duces pote ntial for malaria transmission. Scienc e 308: 1638-1641.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 189

Boike , A.H., Jr., C.B. Rathburn, J r., LA. Siz emore and M.W. Peters. 1982. Re su lts of

theF lorida

Pr og ram f

or Mo nit oring Mo sq uit o Su sc e pti bil ity to Temephos, 1980- 82. Journal of the Florida Anti-Mosquito Association 53: 84-92. Boike , A. H., Jr., C B. Rathburn, J r., K.L . L ang , H.H. Master s and T.G. F loore. 19 85 . Cu rr e nt s tatus of

theF lorida

Ab a te mon ito ri ng pr og ram – S us c e pti bil ity

® levels of thre e spec ies of mosquitoes during 1984. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 4: 498-501. Br eaud, T .P. 1993. I nsecticide resistanc e in Florida mosquitoes. Journal of the Florida Mosquito C ontrol Association 64: 14-21. Br og don, W.G. and J .C. McAllister. 1998a. Insecticide resistanc e and ve ctor control. Em e rg ing In

fe c tio us Di se as e 4: 605-613. B ro g do n, W.G . andJ.C. M c Al lis te r. 19 98 b. Simp lif ic a tio n o f a du lt m os qu ito bioassay s throug h the use of time- mortality determination in glass bottles. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 14: 159-165. Br own, A.W.A. 1986. I nsecticide resistanc e in mosquitoes: a prag matic re view. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito ControlAssociation 2: 123-140. CDC, 2002. L ast ac cesse d Dec ember 7, 2007. ( htt p:/ /w ww .c dc .g ov /nc i do d/w bt/ re sis ta nc e/a ssay

/bo ttl e/in de x.htm ) Dame, D .A., G.J. W ichterman and J.A. Hornby . 1998. Mosquito ( Aede s taeniorhynchus ) re sistance to methopre ne in an isolated ha bitat. Journal of the American M

osquito Cont rol Association 14: 200-203
. Etang , J ., F. Chandr e, P. Guillet and L . Mang a. 2004. Reduc ed bio-e ffica cy of perme thrin EC impreg nated be dnets ag ainst an Anopheles gambiae str a in w ith ox idase-ba sed py

rethroid toler ance . Ma lar ia J ou rn al 3: 46
. Fe rra ri, J .A. 1996. Insecticide Resistance. In : B e a ty , B .J. a ndW.C. Ma rq ua rd t. (Eds.). The B iology

of Disea se Ve ctors. Niwot, Colorado: Univer sityof Colorado Press. F inn e y , D .J. 1 97 1. Pr ob it ana ly sis . Cambridg e : Cambridg e Un ive rs ity Pr e ss. Gahan, J .B., C.N. Smith and B.M. Glancey . 1966. Resistance in F lorida and countermeasure s involving che micals. Mo sq uito Ne ws 26: 330-337. Geor g hiou, G.P. 1983. Manag ement of r esistance in arthropods. In : Georg hiou, G.P. and T. Saito. (Eds.). Pest re sistance to pesticide s. New Y ork, USA: Plenum Pr e ss.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 190

Glance y , B.M., C.S. L ofg ren and T.W. Mil ler. 1966. Malathion resistance in the Bla ck Salt-Mar sh Mosquito, Aede s taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann) in F lorida. Mo sq uito Ne ws 26: 439. Gr a ft on -C ard we ll, E. E. , Y . O uy a ng , R. A. Strig g ow , J.A . Ch ri sti a ns e n andC.S. B la c k. 20 04 . Ro le of

e ste ra se e nzyme s inmon ito ri ng fo r r e sis ta nc e of Ca lif ornia red sc ale, Ao nid ie lla au ra nti i (Homoptera : Diaspididae), to or g anophosphate and car bamate inse cticides. Journal of Economic E ntomology 97: 606-13. Knipple, D. C., K.E. Doyle, P.A. Marse lla-He rrick, D .M. Soderlund. 1994. Tig ht g enetic linkag e betwe en the kdr insecticide r esistance trait and a voltag e-se nsitive sodium channel g ene in the housefly
. Procee dings of the Nati onal Academ y of Scienc es. U.S.A. 91: 2483-7. Kol acz in sk i, J H., C. Fanel lo , J .P . He rve, D.J . C on way , P . C arne val e and C. F. Curtis. 2000. Ex perimenta l and molecular g enetic analy sis of the impact of py re thr oida ndno n- py

re thr oidins e c tic ideimp re g nate d b e dn e ts f or mos qu ito control in an a

rea of py rethroid r esistance
. Bulletin of Entomological Research 90: 125-32. Kulkarni, M.A., M. Rowland, M. Alifr ang is, F.W. Mosha, J . Matowo, R. Malima, J . Peter, E. Kw eka., I . Ly imo, S. M ag esa, A . Salanti, M.E. Rau, and C. Drakeley
. 2006. Occ urre nce of

the leucine -to-phenylalanine knoc kdown re sistance ( kdr) mutation in An op he le s a ra bie ns is p o p u l a t i o n s i n T a n z a n i a , d e t e c t e db y a simpli fied hig h-throug hput SS OP-ELI SA method. Ma lar ia J ou rn al 5: 56
. Ly nd, A., H. Ranson, P.J . McCall, N.P. Randle, W.C. Black 4 , E.D. Walker and th M. J. Do nn e lly . 2 00 5. A s imp lif ie d h ig h- thr ou g hp ut m e tho d f or py re thr oid knock-dow n resistanc e ( kdr) dete ction in Anopheles gambiae
. Ma lar ia J ou rn al 4: 16. Liu, H., E.W. Cupp, K.M. Mi cher , A. Guo and N . Liu. 2004. I nsecticide resistanc e and c ross-re sistance in Alabama and F lorida strains of Culex quinquefasciatus (S.). Journal of Medical Entomology 41: 408-413. Liu, N, Q. Xu, F . Z hu and L . Z hang . 2006. Pyrethroid r esistance in mosquit oes. Insec t Scienc e 13: 159-166. M art i n e z - T o rr e s , D
. , F
. C h a n d r e , M
. S
. W i l l i a m s o n , F
. D arr i e t , J
. B
. B e r g e , A
. L. Devonshire , P. Guillet, N. Pasteur and D. Paur on. 1998. Molecular char acte rization of pyrethroid knoc kdown re sistance ( kdr) i n th e ma jor ma lari a vector Anopheles gambiae s.s. Insec t Molecular Biology 7: 179-84.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 191

McAbe e, R. D., K.D. K ang , M.A. Stanich, J .A. Christiansen, C.E. Wheelock, A. D. I nman, B .D . H a mmo c k andA. J. Corne l. 2 00 4. Py re thr oidtol e ranc e in Culex pipiens pipiens var molestus from Marin County , California. Pe st Managem ent Scienc e 60: 359-368. Nar ahashi, T. 1996. Ne uronal ion channels as the tar g et sites of insecticide s. Pharmacological Toxicology 79: 1-14. Paul, A., L .C. Harrington, L . Z hang and J.G. S cott. 2005. I nsecticide resistanc e in Culex pipiens from Ne w York. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 21: 305-9. Petersen, J.L . 2004. Measuring Insecticide Resistance by the B ottle Bioassay . In : Ru tle dg e , C. R. ( Ed .) . F lorida Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol H a ndbo ok . 3 Ed iti on . F t. rd My ers, F L : Florida Mosquito Control Association. Robertson, J .L . and H. K. Pre isler. 1991. Pesticide B ioassay with arthropods. B oc a Raton , F lorida : CRC Pr e ss. Sa tte lle , D .B . andD. Yama mot o. 19 88 . M ole c ula r t arg e ts o f p yre thr oid insecticides. Advanc ed Inse ct Physiology 20: 147-213. S cho lt e, E .J ., K. N g' hab i, J . Ki ho nd a, W . T akk en, K. P aai jm ans , S . Ab du ll a, G .F. Ki lle e n andB .G . Kno ls. 20 05 . A n e nto mop a tho g e nic fu ng us fo r c on tr ol o f a du lt Afric an malaria mosquitoes. Scienc e 308: 1641-2. Tao, L . M., J .Z . Yang , P.J . Z huang and Z .H. Tang . 2006. Effe ct of a mix ture of iprobenfos and malathion on the deve lopment of malathion resistanc e in the mosquito Culex pipiens pallens Coq. Pest Manage ment Scie nce 62: 86-90. Tripe t, F ., J. Wri g ht andG. L a nza ro . 2 00 6. A n e w h ig h- pe rf orma nc e PCR diag nostic for the de tection of py rethroid knoc kdown re sistance kdr in Anopheles gambiae
. American J

ournal of T

ropical Medicine Hygiene 74: 658-62. Ver haeg hen, K., W. Van B ortel, P. Roelants, T. Ba ckeljau and M. Coosemans. 2006. Detec tion of the East and West African kdr mutation in Anopheles gambiae and An op he le s a ra bie ns is fr om U g a nd a us ing a ne w a ssay

ba se d o n F RET/Me lt Curve analy sis. Ma lar ia J ou rn al 5: 16. Vu lul e , J. M. , R. F . B e a c h, F .K . A tie li, J.C. M c Al lis te r, W.G . B ro g do n, J.M. Rob e rt s, R.W. Mw a ng i a ndW.A . H a wl e y . 1 99 9. El e vate d o xida se a nde ste ra se levels assoc iated with permethrin toleranc e in Anopheles gambiae from Ke ny an village s using pe rmethrin-impre g nated ne ts. Medic al Veterinary Entomology 13: 239-44.Chapt er 10: I ns ectResi st anc e Managemen t Page 192

Wil liamson, M.S., I . Denholm, C.A. Be ll and A.L . Devonshire . 1993. Knockdown r esistance ( kdr) to DDT and pyrethroid insec ticides maps to a sodium c h a n n e l g e n e l o c u s i n t h e h o u s e f l y (Musca dome stica ). Mo le c ula r G e ne tic s 240: 17-22. Wor ld H e a lthOr g a nizatio n. 19 81 . Ins truc tio ns fo r d e te rm ini ng thesu sc e pti bil ity or re sistance of

adult mosquitoes to organochlorine, or g anophosphate and car bamate inse cticides diag nostic test. WHO/VBC/81.806, Geneva
. Wor ld H e a lthOr g a nizatio n. 19 92 . V e c tor re sis ta nc e to p e sti c ide s. F if te e nth re po rt of theWHO e xpe rt

c omm itt e e on ve c tor

bio log y a ndc on tr ol. Ge ne va : WHO technica l report se ries, No. 818.

## Chap ter 11

MOSQUITO CONTROL RES EARC H C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r s : D r . K e n L in th ic u m , D r . Jo h n S m ith ,

a nd D r. W

al t erT ab achn i ck 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r s : D r . R ic h a r d B a k e r, D r . D o n a ld B a n a r d,

a nd D r . Jo h n S m ith
Summ ary The aim of mosquito control is to limit t he impact of nuisance and dis e as e c ar ry ing mo sq uitoe s o n Flor ida re sid e nts an d to ur ist

s, while simultaneously maintaini ng and, where possible, improving the e nv iro nm e nt. Mo sq uito c on tro l is too ofte n in the mi ddle of a c on fli c t be twe e n c itize ns who ma y fe e l th at m os qu ito c on tro l is ins uff ic ie nt a nd tho se pe op le who be lie v e mo sq uito c on tro l is harming the env ironment. To stri ke a balanc e, mosquito control programs need to be based on solid scientifically based researc h tha t pr ov ide s sa fe , e ffe c tiv e , e c on om ic al, an d e nv iro nm e nta lly sensitive mosquito control technologies. In the deve lopment of an effective mosquito control program, the most important concerns facing mosquito control today requiring research are:

• surveillance

• mosquito biology

• wetlands ecology

• human-made mosquito problems

• disease dete ction and preve ntion

• re pe lle nts
• attractants improving

• existing che mical technology

• non-target organisms

• biocontrol The history, accomplishme nts, and needs of the principal university, gove rnment and private laboratories, and agenc ies involved in Florida's research effort are desc ribed. W ithout st rong fun din g fo r m os qu ito c on tro l re se arc h a nd ex te ns ion , th e se lab or ato rie s wi ll b e forc e d to c on du c t re se arc h in oth e r m ore readily funded areas. Alre ady, mosquito control is losing s ome of its effective tools due to insec ticide resistance, de velopme nt and operational costs, or concern that some c hemicals and/or techniques m ay be harm

ful to the environment. W ithout researchC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 194

laboratories searching for new innovative me thods and technology and verifying their safe use, m osquito control w ill have increasing difficulti es providing protection for Florida' s citizens at the leve l expe cted today. The thre at of more mosquitoes and the pathogens they c arry will af

fect the well-be ing of Floridi ans and tourists. W ithout a st rong mosquito control effort, Fl orida wil l be an uncomfortable and dangerous place to live and visit.


### 11 . 1 INTRODUCTION

• Surveillan ce : Good mosquito and mosquit o-borne pathog en surve illance sy stems are the hea

rt of an e ffe ctive mosquito control prog ram. Ef ficient and a c c ur a te me tho ds to s urve y mos qu ito po pu latio ns to i de nti fy a ndpr e dic t mo sq uit o outbreaks and to detec t and pre dict the occ urre nce of mosquito-borne pathog ens areneede d so that the most efficie nt and environme ntally sound control methods can beimplemented. Resea rch is nee ded to improve c urre nt surveillance pr a c tic e s.

• Mosquito Bi ology : Mosquitoes have bee n around f or millions of y ear s and have mastere d way s to survive – despite habitat manipulation and c hemical c ontrol. New e x otic specie s invade the state on a re g ular ba sis, bringing with them new threats. Researc h on the biology of many of the spec ies has provide d much of the information that led to today ' s control methods. These methods resulted fr om an understanding of mosquito biology , ecolog y , repr oduction, and habits. The mor e we know a

bout mosquit oes, the g reater the pote ntial for deve loping improve d te c hn iqu e s f

or the ir c on tr ol w ith ou t ha

rm ing thee nv ir on me nt.

• Wetlands Ecology : Orig inally , mosquitoes inhabiting salt marshe s along Fl o ri d a's co as twe re t h e m aj o r s o u rc e o f c o m p l ai n t s . T h e u s e o f d ra i n i n g, impounding, and c hemicals broug ht saltmarsh mosquitoes larg ely under c ontrol. Unfortunately , some of the pa st soluti ons cause d some environmenta l problems. Resear ch has de monstrated that mosquito control and we tlands prese rvation ar e not mutuallyexclusive goa ls. More re sear ch is nee ded to fine- tune and e nhance mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams. • H u man -ma d e M o s q u i to Pro b l ems : Wastewater, r ainwate r, and a rtificial c on ta ine rs dis c ard e d b y

hu ma ns areno w a

ma jor so ur c e of mos qu ito pr ob le ms i n F lorida . Re se arc h is ne e de d to pr ov idec re a tiv e so lution s to mos qu ito pr ob le ms cre ated by

humans. For

example, resea

rch is nee ded on the biolog y and contr ol of Ae de s a lbo

pic tus , the Asian tig er mosquito, and other invasive spec ies introduced into the U.S. The Asian tig er mosquito is considere d by many people to be among the more important pe st species throug hout much of F lorida. It also is considered an important potential vec tor of pathog ens that cause disease
.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 195

• Disease De tec tion and P reve ntion : Whi le Florida has be en re latively fre e for the last 40 or more y ear s from the most infamous mosquito-transmitted diseases such as y ellow fe ver, de ng ue, malaria, and f ilariasis, Florida

still experience s pe ri od ic ou tbr e aks of

St. L ou is e nc e ph a lit is ( SLE) , e a ste rne qu inee nc e ph a lit is (EEE) , and West Nile enc ephalitis (WNE). The la st SL E epidemic in 1990 struc k 226 individuals, caused e leven de aths, disrupted the lives of many Floridians, and had a ne g ative financial impact on the tourist indust ry . West Nile virus (WNV) e nte re d th e U. S. i n 1 99 9, wa s d e te c te d inF lorida in 2 00 1, a ndha s c aus e d We st Nile disease in 3-100 Floridians e ach y ear since. The re is g reat risk of a substantial WNE epidemic in Florida w ith hundreds to thousands of human c ases. E n d e m i c m a l ar i a , d e n g u e , a n df i l ar i a s i s ar e o n l y a n a i rp l a n e r i d e a w a y ( e.g. , H a iti , Me xico , andPue rt o Ri c o) . In 1 99 0 an o utb re ak o f l oc a lly a c qu ir e d malari a oc c ur re d inGu lf

Cou nty , and , in19 96 a ndin 2 00 3, ou tbr e aks oc c ur re d inPa lm Be ach County . The mosquito vectors f or many vector -borne pathog ens ar e abu nd a nt i n F lorida . T he e ntry of WNV int o F lorida

de mon str a te s th e g re a t risk from other

emer g ing ve ctor-borne pathog ens. Expertise and re sear ch to identify the mosquito vectors, the pathoge ns they car ry , and new methods to control them areessential to detec t outbreaks e arly and implement control mea sures to interr upt transmission to prevent human disea se.

• Repellents : Safe and eff ective pe rsonal prote ction is neede d to ward of f biting insects, espe cially

if funds, time, or location do not allow for mosquito control a c tiv iti e s. Un fo rtun a te ly , o f the fe w r e pe lle nts that area vaila ble , s omepr od uc ts areoil y , h a ve a n o ff

e ns iveod or , o r h a ve oth e r u np le a sa nt p ro pe rtie s. Som e ind ivi du a ls a

rea lle rg ic to the ing re die nts . Anu mbe r o f p la nts , b ug zap pe rs , bu zzer s, e tc ., area dv e rtise d andso ld a s mo sq uit o r e pe lle nts a ndy ardins e c tc on tr ol d e vic e s. To date , a ll o f the se de vic e s h a ve pr ov e n u se le ss. Re se arc h is neede d to evaluate and deve lop new re pellents and ne w methods of per sonal protec tion.

• Attr actants : I n contra st to repellents, mosquito attractants also exi st. Researc h 2 ha s sh ow n th a t so me g a se s ( e.g. , CO a ndoc te no l) a ttr a c t la rg e nu mbe rs of

so me mosquito and biti ng midge specie s to traps or into killing zones treate d with an insecticide. Thr oug h rese arc h, we a re a ble to develop moreinteg rate d methods of c on tr ol w ithle ss r e lianc e on c he mic a l in se c tic ide s.

• Im proving E xisting Chem ical Technology : N e w c he mic a ls f or mos qu ito control ar e expensive to deve lop. Resear ch to deve lop new or diff ere nt app lic a tio n te c hn iqu e s, fo rmulatio ns , andsyne rg ist s c a n e xten d th e e ff e c tiv e ne ss of existi ng chemicals for mosquito control by delaying r esistance and/or improving pe rformance . For example, rec ent discussions conce rning the ef fica cy of mic ro bial in se c tic ide s su g g e st that ti me of app lic a tio n andlarv a l f

e e din g ha bit s may be important for

treatment succe ss. There arevariations in application me tho ds a mon g mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams. It is no t un us ua l f or a c he mic a l to wo rk we ll f or on e pr og ram bu t no t w or k f or a no the r p ro g ram. R e se arc h toC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 196

compar e and de monstrate the be st methods and techniques of application ar e neede d. • No n -t a rg etO rg a n i s ms : T he F lorida Coo rd inatin g Cou nc il o n M os qu ito Control (FCCMC) has bee n conce rned a bout the eff

ects of inse cticides such a s temephos and pe rmethrin on non-ta rg et org anisms, espec ially when a pplied on state lands. Further r esea rch is nee ded to better

assess and mitig ate the non- targ et impacts of mosquito control insecticides. The re is also a need to we igh the benef its and limi tations of deploying a particula r che mical ver sus other control te c hn iqu e s ( e.g. , ditching, impounding ).

• Biocontrol : Although a number of mosquito predators, para sites, and pathog ens have show n promise as biolog ical contr ol ag ents, few specie s other than the mosquitofish, Ga mb us ia sp p. , h a ve be e n e ff e c tiv e ly int e g rate d in to m os qu ito control due to e ffica cy , as we ll as logistical and economic pr oblems. Resear ch has shown that, with the exception of mosquito-eating f ish, natural leve ls of predators, such as pur

ple martins and dr ag onflies or pathoge ns and par asites, do not significantly

reduc e mosquito populations. Yet with additional resea rch, biological control may

repr esent a

targ et-spec ific alternative to che mical insecticides.


### 1 1 . 2 RES EAR CH ORG ANI Z ATI ONS Florida is fortunate to ha ve a numbe r of f eder al, state, and local g overnme nt a g e nc ie s, a s w e ll a s p ri vate or g a nizatio ns , th a t c on du c t or su pp ort mo sq uit o biology and contr ol relate d rese arc h. 11.2.1 F ederal 11 .2 .1 .1 U. S. D e par tm e nt of A gr ic ult ur e , C e nt e rforM e dic al, Ag r ic ult ur al, and Veter inary En tom ology History : During World W ar II , the United States De partment of A g riculture (U SDA ) c oo pe rate d w iththeUn ite d St a te s D e pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e (D oD ) t o establish a re sear ch labor atory in Orlando, F lorida. The mission of the labor atory was to deve lop technolog ies for the protec tion of mili tary personne l ag ainst insect vector s of disease . I n 1951, the laboratory was named the Insects Af fec ting Man and Animals Resea

rch L aboratory . I n 1961, the Secr etaries of De fense and Ag riculture sig ned a me morandum of unde rstanding to continue the re sear ch prog ram unde r USDA funding . I n 1963, the laboratory moved into new fe dera l fac iliti es located on the campus of the Univer sityof F lorida (UF ) in Gaine sville. T h e l ab o ra t o ry 's n am e w as ch an ged t o M ed i ca l an dVe t er i n ar y E n t o m o l o gy Resear ch L aboratory

in 1990 and to the Center f or Medical, Ag ricultural, and Veterinary

Entomology

(CMAVE) in 1996. Annua l base funding for the Ce nter e xce e ds $1 3 mi lli on a t pr e se nt.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 197

Mission : The mission of CMAVE is to conduct rese arc h on insects of ag ricultural, medic al, and ve terinary importance with the g oal of a chieving control of pest spec ies throug h environmenta lly compatible appr oache s. CMAVE c on sis ts o f f

ou r R e se arc h U nit s: 1. Be havior and Bioc ontrol 2. Chemistry 3. I mported F ire Ant 4. Mo sq uit o andF ly The mosquito-related mission of the laboratory is to develop novel tec hnologie s for de tection and population monitoring , repe llents for the prote ction of humans a nda nim a ls f

ro m bi tin g a ndfi lthbr e e din g fl ie s, a nde ff e c tiv e c he mic a l, biological, and g enetic c ontrol technolog ies and integ rate d manag ement strate g ies fo r i ns e c ts andarthr op od s o f m e dic a l a ndve te ri na ry imp orta nc e . T he mis sio n is primarily in support of the USDA and the DoD; howe ver, r esults of rese arc h un de rt ake n at CM AV E h a ve app lic a tio n to pr og rams o f anim a l a ndpu bli c he a lth in international, national, state, and local ag riculture and public health g overnme nt ag encie s, private industry , and the g ener al public. The me dical and ve terinary e nto mol og y

sta ff of CMA VEc on sis ts o f f

if te e n p e rm a ne nt s c ie nti sts , s ix postdoctoral/visiting scientists, and appr ox imately fifty technical/support personne l. The laboratory fac ilityis modern and we ll equipped and c omprises approximately

60,000 square fee t of space
. St a ff : Mosquito-related r esea rch at the laboratory

is undertake n by

ten permanent, full-time categ ory I scientists, two full-time categ ory I I I scientists, and fo ur te mpo ra ry po std oc tor a l sc ie nti sts
. Bud get : T he a llo c a tio n o f b a se fu nd ing is d e fi ne d b y thenu mbe r o f p e rm a ne nt, fu ll- tim e c a te g ory

I po sit ion s. At

pr e se nt, app ro xima te ly

$3 ,7 00 ,0 00 pe r y e ar i s committed to resea

rch involving mosquitoes. Base funds ar e re ceive d via the ag riculture a

ppropriation appr oved y early by the U.S. Congr ess. Curre nt total extramural funding in support of mosquito resear ch is more than $1,500,000 f rom Do D andind us try

so ur c e s. M aj orCo nt r ibution s: CMAVE ac complishments derive fr om multi -disciplinary te a m r e se arc h anda

wi de rang e of

c oo pe rativ e e ff

orts. Sc ie nti sts int e ra c t w ith colleag ues and w ith animal/public health ag encie s and org anizations worldwide. Cooperator s include the DoD , the World Health Org anization (WHO), the Food and Ag riculture O rg anization, the I nternational Atomic Energ y Ag ency , the Animal and Plant Hea lth I nspection Service , the Centers f or Disea se Control and Prevention (CDC), the F ood and Dr ug Administration (FDA ), the Environme ntal Pr ote c tio n A g e nc y

(E PA) , th e Te nn e sse e Va lle y Au tho ri ty , v ari ou s u niv e rs iti e s, local and state mosquito control prog rams, sister Ag riculture Re sear ch Servic e (ARS) laboratories, and industry . CMAVE has an outstanding rec ord of c hemical control re sear ch ac complishments.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 198

Resear ch ac complishments of the scientists conce rned w ith mosqui to resea rch a re documented in a

pproxi mately

2,500 publications in scientific journals, c onfer ence pr oc e e din g s, bo ok s, bo ok c ha pte rs , h a ndbo ok s, a ndpate nts
. Major re sear ch ac complishments related to biodeg rada ble pesticides and persona l protec tion chemicals include the:

• development of

N,N-die thy l-meta-toluamide ( DEET), the principal a c tiv e ing re die nt i n mo st i ns e c t r e pe lle nts

• development of

the Ultra L ow Volume (U LV) method of inse cticide application for

use in mosquito control

• de ve lop me nt o f a

c lothin g tr e a tme nt f

or pe rs on a l pr ote c tio n a g a ins t biting arthropods Major re sear ch ac complishments related to the Biologi cally Based Resear ch P rogram include deve loping ne w biologic ally based c ontrol strateg ies for mosquitoes, house flies, and stable f lies. Deve lopment of new biolog ical pe sti c ide s a nd

/or c on tr ol s tr a te g ie s f

or ve c tor a ndpe st f

lie s b e c ome s in c re a sin g ly important as human populations g row and new and exoti c disea se ag ents appe ar. Alternative control methods also ar e nee ded to combat hig h levels of insec ticide resistanc e in flies that af

fec t animal production and w ell-being . Such strateg ies can he lp preve nt contamination of the e nvironment with chemica l pesticides that threaten humans and c ontribute to a dec line in biodiversity . Ex amples of ne w technolog ies under de velopment by unit scientists are:

• Discovery

of a ne w bac ulovirus to combat mosquitoes inhabiting ag ricultural wa stewate r

• Deve lopment of a ne w protozoan para site method for c ontrol of Aede s ae gy pti, the y ellow fe ver mosquito

• De ve lop me nt o f a

ne w m e tho d u sin g a

ne matod e pa

ra sit e fo r m os qu ito control

• Di sc ov e ry

of a ne w p ara sit ic wa sp fo r c on tr ol o f h ou se fl ie s a ndsta ble flies

• I mpr ov e me nt o f the qu a lity of c omm e rc ia lly

pr od uc e d w a sp s f

or fl y control

• De ve lop me nt o f n e w t ra ps to p re ve nt f

ly imm ig ratio n in to ne ig hb or ho od s a ro un d f arm sC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 199 • Discovery

of che micals that cloak humans (make the m “invisible”) fr om mosquito detection

• Deve lopment and eva luation of perme thrin-treated United States Ma ri ne Cor ps un if orms Major re sear ch ac complishments of the Surveillan ce and Ecology of Mosq uito, Biting an d Filth Bree din g Insects P rogram aredirec ted at mee ting public/animal health and military needs f or low-c ost, attractant-based de tection sy stems that determine the prese nce and abundanc e of nuisanc e flies and vector s and deve loping f

aster, le ss expensive, more spec ific, and moresensitive methods to detect ve ctors that may be ca rrying e ndemic, exotic animal, or human pathog ens. Ther e is a c ritical nee d to develop a G eog raphic I nformation Sy stem (GI S)-base d sy stem that integ rate s these dete ction methods with knowledg e of the targ e t in se c t’ s b iol og y

a nde nv ir on me ntal f

a c tor s f or a c c ur a te dis e a se ri sk a sse ssm e nt. Exa mpl e s o f n e w t e c hn olo g ie s u nd e r d e ve lop me nt b y un it s c ie nti sts are :

• Discovery

of new attrac tants for house f lies, Ae de s a e gy

pti, and mos qu ito e s th a t tr a ns mit

ma lari a

• Discovery

of environme ntal fac tors that attrac t or repe l mosquit oes during ovipositi on

• Elucidation of dispersa l patterns, bre eding habits, and host attrac tions of horn f lies, house flies, stable f

lies, and mosquitoes

• Deve lopment of marking sy stems to studydispersal patterns of mosquitoes

2 • Deve lopment of a ne w g ener ation of CO and/or he at produc ing mosquito t raps f

or improved surve illance and population manag ement of selec ted mosquito species

• I dentification of octenol as an important mosquito attractant and w ork wi th p ri vate ind us try

to d e ve lop re a dil y

a vaila blelur e s f

or mos qu ito su rv e ill a nc e pr og rams
• Un de rs ta nd ing thero le of sp e c ie s b iol og y

a ndpo pu latio n g e ne tic s in the transmission of arbovir uses

• Deve lopment of specie s-spec ific traps that are light we ight, inexpensive, low maintenanc e, and w hich ar e surr og ates for individual human or liv e sto c k b a it

• I de nti fi c a tio n andsynth e sis of ho st s pe c if

ic a ndov ipo sit iona ttr a c ta nts and ada ptation for use in tra

ps or bait stationsC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 200

• De sig n andte sti ng of

a mod e l us ing GI S te c hn olo g y a ndre mot e se ns ing to p re dic t th e ide a l pl a c e me nt o f t ra ps fo r v e c tor

a ndfl y surveillanceand to assess risk of disease tr ansmission

• I nvestig ation of the ne ural and sensory ultrastructureof ticks and Dipter a

• Deve lopment of measur ements of e lectrophy siologica l activation for us e in s e le c tin g ve c tor

a ttr a c ta nts a ndre pe lle nts The Deployed War-F ighter P rote ction (DWF P ) P rogram is a DoD-sponsor ed rese arc h prog ram a dminist ere d by the Arme d For ces Pest Mana g ement B oard (AF PMB). It is tasked with the development and testing of manag ement tools for pest and ve ctor spec ies that transmit diseases to deploy ed wa r-f ighte rs. New and improved materials and methods for pe sticide delivery areneede d by

the Arme d For ces to pre vent disease s that threate n the deploy ed troops. Resea rch at CMAVE inv olv e s th e dis c ov e ry , e va luatio n, de ve lop me nt, a ndop tim izatio n o f: 1) new pesticides ef

fec tive ag ainst mosquitoes and flies, 2) new persona l protec tion products eff

ective in pr eventing mosquito and fly bites, and 3) ne w application and pe rsonal prote ction methodologie s and strate g ies. Re c e nt a c c omp lis hme nts inc lud e :

• Re-evaluation of old chemistries for their ef fec t on mosquit oes

• De ve lop me nt o f n e w p e sti c ide s u sin g mol e c ula r b iol og y te c hn iqu e s to targ e t ph y sio log ic a l pr oc e ss i n th e ins e c ts

• Deve lopment of spatial re pellent delivery field kits to be used by

war fig hters

• Te sti ng of

sp a tial r e pe lle nts fo r u se in m ili tary te nts

• Deve lopment of barrier-spr ay strateg ies for use by

deploy ed troops

• Selection of more eff

icient fly traps for use in arid c onditions wher e U.S. troops ar e deploy ed Fu t u re re s earc h i s b ei n g d i re ct ed att h e f o l l o wi n g:

• Di sc ov e ry

a ndde ve lop me nt o f n e w b iol og ic a l, b e ha vio ral, phy siologica l, ge netic, and c hemical r eg ulating me chanisms that can be us e d f or mos qu ito c on tr ol

• Va lid a tio n o f r e c e ntl y dis c ov e re d b iol og ic a l, c he mic a l, andg e ne tic mosquito control technolog ies in larg e-sc ale, a rea -wide manag ement prog rams tar g eted at natural populations of mosquitoesC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 201 • Scientific, ec onomic, and sociolog ically sound analy ses of the c osts of mos qu ito c on tr ol i n r e latio n to be ne fi ts a c c ru ing to the pu bli c (improved qua lityof life) and animal/public health (disease ve ctor abate ment) worldwide
11.2.1.2 U.S. Navy Entom ology Center of E xcellence History: I n 1940, the United States fa ced w ar in the Pac ific which w ould require committing numerous pe rsonnel to a r eg ion char acte rized by an ele vated risk of ma lari a a ndoth e r v e c tor -b orne dis e a se . B y 19 41 , s te ps we reini tiate d to de a l w ith such an e ventuality . The Na vy Medica l Department established the Hospital Volunteer Specialist Group, H- V(S), to fill the requir ement for experts in allied medicine f

ields including e ntomology , leading to commissioni ng the first Na vy entomologists. B y

the end of

the war , the H-V (S) g roup would include morethan 900 personne l, over 200 of w hom wereentomologists, and would be repr esente d by 31 differ ent profe ssional specialties. Following World W ar II , only a handf ul of entomolog ists remained on a ctive duty . A majority

of the Na vy

Epidemiology

Units, which proved so suc cessf ul during the war , wer e disbande d. One that r emained, how ever , was the Malariolog y

and Pest Control Unit at Naval Air Station, B anana River, Florida. The unit was moved to Naval Air Station, J acksonville, F lorida in 1947. I n 1949, it was commissioned the Malaria and Mosquito Control Unit No. 1, with an entomologist as the O ffice r in Charg e. In 1952, the Unit was re named Pre ventive Medicine U nit No. 1 (PMU-1), and in 1957, PMU-1 be came the Disea se Ve ctor Control Center (DV CC) with an expanded mission and area of oper ation which included appr ox imately

one-ha lf of the world. I n 1971, DVCC J AX wa s redesig nated the N avy

Disease Vec tor Ecolog y

and Control Center ( DVECC). Finally , in 2006, DVECC J AX wa s re- named the N avy Entomology

Center f or Exc e lle nc e (N ECE ) t o r e fl e c t a n e xpa nd e d r oleinv olv ing a c tiv e c oll abo ratio n w ith fede ral, state, and local ag encie s, aca demia, and w orld-re cog nized specialists and or g a nizatio ns to d e ve lop state -o f- the -a rt dis e a se ve c tor

c on tr ol t a c tic s, te c hn iqu e s, and proc edure s, protecting the war -fig hter re sulting in mission success. M iss ion : NECE continues to ensurerea diness of our military forc es by providing expert training and tec hnical support to re duce the risk of diseasetransmitted by arthropod ve ctors. This mission is acc omplished through: 1) conducting on-site disease vector /pest manag ement prog ram evaluations for shore and afloat commands supporting their pre ventive me dic inere qu ir e me nts 2) evaluating/deve loping ne w equipment, pesticide s, and tec hniques for the DoD, pa

rtnering with a variety

of org anizations including the USD A andtheAF PMBC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 202

3) dir e c tly

su pp ortin g dis a ster r e lie f/ hu ma nit ari a n a ssi stanc e e ff orts ( e.g ., Hu rric a ne Katrina , T su nami r e lie f) a ndc on tin g e nc y op e ratio ns ( e.g ., O p e r a ti o n Ir a q i Fr e e d o m, O p e r a ti o n E n d u r in g Fr e e d o m) to mi n im iz e the threat of vec tor-bornedisease impac ting at-risk populations 4) providing a wide va

riety of training opportunities including Oper ational Entomology

Training (OET) , which pre pare s medical pe rs on ne l to e sta

bli sha te mpo ra ry pu bli c he a lthve c tor

/pe st manag ement prog ram whe re noneexis ts, and pesticide a pplicator certification training to DoD per sonnel 5) analy zing and c ompiling world-w ide medica l entomology information into Ve c tor

Ris k A sse ssm e nt P ro fi le s, which ar e provide d to deploy ing me dic a l a ndno n- me dic a l pe rs on ne l a ndthe ir c omm a nd s Fro m it s in c e pti on in 1 94 7 th ro ug h to day a ndint o th e fu tur e , th e sta ff of NE CE has and w ill continue to provide world-c lass support to the war -fig hter, re ducing the adve rse a ffe cts of vec tor borne dise ase.
11.2.2 State 11.2.2.1 F lorida Agricultural and Mec hani cal University, John A.

M ulr e nnan, Sr . P ublicHe alth Ent om olo gy Re se ar c h and Edu cation Cente r History : Florida A g ricultural and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Pub lic He a lthEn tom olo g y Re se arc h andEd uc a tio n Ce nte r i n Panama City (PHEREC) beg an oper ations out of temporary quarte rs in the Panama City Navy Min e De fe ns e L abo ra

tory (n ow Na va l Co a sta l Sy ste ms St a tio n) in 1 96 4 u nd e r i ts fo rm e r n a me , We st F lorida Arthr op odRe se arc h L abo ratory . It w a s st a ff e d w ith scientists specializing in che mical control fr om the then Entomology Resear ch Center [now the Univer sityof F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Sc ie nc e s, F lorida

Me dic a l E nto mol og y

L abo ratory

(FME L )] andwa s lo c a te d in the coa stal reg ion of the ce ntral panhandle. The primary purpose of

PHEREC was to develop strate g ies for the control of the dog fly , Sto mo x y s c alc itr an s (s ta ble fly ), a se verebiting pest of the north g ulf coa st reg ion. Sta ff mov e d to thepr e se nt l oc a tio n o n a 10 -a c rec a mpu s n e ar the Pa nama City airport in 1966. At that time, PHEREC was under the Entomology Offic e of the Florida State Bur eau of

Hea lth (FSBH ) located in J acksonville. From 1964 thr ou g h 1 97 1, PHE REC sc ie nti sts de ve lop e d th e a e ri a l sp ray pr og ram f

or do g fl y c on tr ol. Con c ur

re ntl y , th e la

bo ratory ma int a ine d th e re pu tatio n o f b e ing thestate cente r for chemical control rese arc h on mosquitoes. I n contra st, FMEL focuse d more on the biolog y

of mosquitoes and biting midg es. Afte r the dog fly control prog ram wa s develope d, rese arc h on the control of mosquitoes, as w ell as otherC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 203

public health pests and ve ctors, took on an e ven g reater sig nificanc e at PHEREC. A biologic al control a nd an envir onmental pesticide te sting prog ram we re a dded to s up po rt

mos qu ito c on tr ol n e e ds
. I n 1 99 2, PHE REC wa s tr a ns fe rr e d b y theF lorida

L e g isl a tur e to the State Un i v er s i t y

S y s t em u n d erFl o ri d a A gri cu l t u ra l an dM ec h an i ca l Un i v er s i t y , C o l l ege of Eng ineering Scie nces, Te chnolog y , and Ag riculture. A t that point, more emphasis was pla ced on the integ ration of r esea rch, e x tension, and educ ational prog rams. Shortly

there afte r, the biolog ical contr ol resea rch se ction was e xpa nd e d to inc lud e oth e r n on -c he mic a l te c hn iqu e s o f m os qu ito c on tr ol ( i.e. , preda ceous c opepods and the development of literature for the g ener al public for container -bre eding mosquito control). A dedicated re sear ch sec tion also was established for

biting fly and tick contr ol resea

rch. Today , PHEREC continues to be Florida' s primary cente r for

insecticide r esea

rch. Scientists are wor

king on se vera l fac ets to improve safe ty , eff icac y , and environmenta l stewardship. Cutting e dg e re sear ch on pesticide evaluation t ec h n i q u es , ap p l i ca t i o n m et h o d s an dp ro ce d u re s , p re ci s i o n t ar get i n g, meteorolog ical ef

fec ts, environmental fate, non-tar g et ef fec ts, and mitigation ar e att h e f o re fr o n t
. C o mp l em en t i n g t h es e s t u d i es ar e p ro j ec t s o n re m o t e s en s i n g, ba rrie r s pr a y s, mis tin g sy ste ms, fo rmulatio n te sti ng , r e pe lle nts , tr app ing sy ste ms, and mosquito and arbovir us surveillanceand ec ology , as we ll as discovery and e nh a nc e me nt o f m ic ro bial in se c tic ide s. PHR EC w or ks c los e ly wi th t he mos qu ito control ag encie s throug hout the state to improve their pr og rams. The e rosion of state f

unding ha s resulted in g reater e mphasis on sponsored rese arc h. Out of nec essity , scientists have be come moreopportunistic, taking on projec ts that have funding support as an e ssential element. This re ality , more than a nythi ng e lse , c on tr ols thec on tin ue d e vo lutionof PHE REC
. The futur e will find PHEREC scientists conducting a varie ty of re sear ch, education, and extension progr ams. Maintaining adequa te funding to support and expand section laboratories will be a priority . Contracts and g rants will financ e mosquito resear ch nee ded in the abse nce of state appr opriations. Chemical re se arc h w ill be paid f

or by ind us try . L oc a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro g rams w ill assume a g reater shar e of the costs to ge t priority rese arc h acc omplished. Mission : The mission of PHEREC i s to:

• Pe rf orm ba sic a ndapp lie d r e se arc h to de ve lop a ndte st formulations, application techniques, and pr ocedur es of pe sticides a ndbio log ic a l c on tr ol a g e nts fo r the c on tr ol o f a rthr op od s o f p ub lic health and nuisance importance

• Pr ov idesp e c ia l atte nti on to the ne e ds of arthr op odc on tr ol d ist

ri c ts, counties, and municipa lities of the state by providing information,C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 204 assistance , and re commendations for the safeand ef

fec tive control of arthropods which cr eate a health or nuisance pr oblem

• Conduct environmental impac t studies to determine (and mitigate) thee ff e c ts o f a rthr op odc on tr ol p e sti c ide s, wi th a sp e c ia l e mph a sis on integ rate d arthropod c ontrol

• Provide the F lorida De partment of A g riculture and Consumer Service s (F DA CS) wi th s uc h in fo rm a tio n a s r e qu ir e d to a ssi st the De pa rtme nt i n the per formanc e of duties with re spect to arthropod control under Chapter 388, F lorida Statues (F .S.)

• Serve a s a ce nter for

training students, as well as state and loca l g overnme nt personnel, in the sa fe and eff ective c ontrol of biting arthropods that cre ate a

public health or nuisanc e proble m Resourc es: Over

one dozen buildings oc cupy the ten-a crecampus of PHEREC. The Center

is nestled on a peninsula sur rounded by

salt marsh on St. Andrews Bay . Easy

acc ess to the Gulf of Me x ico is available from the Cente r’s boathouse. Additional fac iliti es includes an administration building, six laboratories, seve ral insect re aring fac iliti es, and a shop. An extensive array of fr esh and sa ltwater p o n d s an dt an k s , s cr ee n ed en cl o s u re s , ch em i ca l s t o ra ge, an dcarp o rt/ s t o ra ge fac iliti es ar e maintained on the g rounds. The Cente r deploy s a flee t of fourte en vehicles use d for state wide tra vel. Cable interne t is provided throug hout the campus via a

fiber- optic network. In addition to a library containing profe ssional entomology

and pesticide journals, PHEREC also maintains equipment for video teleconf ere ncing and distanceeducation. PHEREC is staffe d by

twenty permanent employ ees and six to ten seasona l employ ees. The re a

re six P h.D. fa culty

scientists and one M.S. rese arc her f or a total of seven principal investig ators. In addition to the seasonal e mploy ees, nine scientific support staf

f ar e available y ear -round to assist the scientists. Two clerical and two maintenancestaff support administrative functions, the shop, fa c ili tie s, a ndg ro un ds . A lth ou g h mo st o f the Ce nte r’ s r e so ur c e s a rede vo te d to mosquito progr ams, stable flies, y ellow flies, biting midg es, and ticks a re studied a s w e ll. Nu me ro us sc ie nti fi c pa pe rs , p op ula

r a rtic le s, pr e se ntatio ns , andme dia interviews ha ve bee n published and pre sented since the Center’ s inception. Re se arc h p ro g rams a

repr e se ntl y

div ide d in to s ix se c tio ns : Mosquito Adu lticides. New f ormulations and insecticide s are tested to determine dosag es and e ffica cy

ag ainst adult mosquitoes. This t esting is acc omplished throug h laboratory

wind tunnel experiments and oper ational field tests. The se c tio n a lso e va luate s e qu ipm e nt u se d to dis pe ns e ins e c tic ide s f or a du lt m os qu ito control and de velops application procedur es employing sophisticate d equipment such as sona

r, re mote sensing came ras, and prec ision application sy stems.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 205

Mosquito Larvicides. The Mosquito L arvic ide Section conduc ts resea rch similar to that of the adulticide se ction. Howeve r, the foc us is on products used to control the mosquito larval and pupa l life stag es in aquatic habitats. New insecticides a re scre ened in labor atory

tests and then take n to an extensive arr ay of experimental ponds and tanks for

outdoor eva luations. This section also is responsible for mon ito ri ng ins e c tic idere sis ta nc e thr ou g ho ut the state via bio a ssay s. Mosquito Bi ological and Alter native Control. Molecular approa ches a

re e mpl oy e d intheMo sq uit o B iol og ic a l a ndAl te rn a tiv e Con tr ol S e c tio n to se le c tiv e ly

e nh a nc e g e ne s r e sp on sib le fo r the toxic ity of mic ro bial in se c tic ide s, su c h a s Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is subsp. isr ae le ns is ( Bt i ), and Bacillus sphaericus ( Bs ). Resea

rche rs also conduc t resea

rch to identify

and isolate ne w pathog ens wi th m os qu ito c idal pr op e rtie s. Disease Ecology and Control. Mo sq uit o andarb ov ir us e c olo g y , mo sq uit o re pe lle nt, a ndmos qu ito tr app ing sy ste ms a rethere se arc h p ro g rams i n th e Di se a se Ecolog y and Control Section. Ecolog ical studies ar e foc used pre dominantly on there latio ns hip of

e a ste rne qu inee nc e ph a lit is v irus (E EE V) a ndWNV in mosquitoes and wild birds. Repellent rese arc h focuse s on developing DEETalternatives and eva luating c ommercia l repe llents curre ntly on the marke t. Mosquito trap studies compare the ca pturing prowe ss of various c ommercia l and e xpe ri me ntal mo de ls andthee ff ic a c y of de plo y ing tr aps fo r c on tr ol. P esticide Environm ental Im pact. Sc re e nin g fo r t he po te nti a l un de sir ablee ff e c ts of pesticides on non- targ et org anisms is the primary aim of the Pesticide Environmental Impact Section. B oth laboratory and fie ld expos ure te sts are conducte d using a

varie ty of test org anisms, including f ish, crustac ea, and ar t h ro p o d s . P es t i ci d e r es i d u e a n al y s es b y gas ch ro m at o gra p h y

an dh i gh perf ormanc e liquid chromatog raphy aremajor re source s of this section. The rese arc hers a dvise Florida mosquito control prog rams of any potential e nv ir on me ntal risk s a ndre c omm e ndmit ig a tio n me tho ds a ndpr oc e du re s. Biting Fly and T ick Control. Deve loping e ffe ctive contr ol strateg ies for biting mid g e s, y e llo w f

lie s, sta blefl ie s, a ndtic ks ha s b e e n p ro ba bly themos t di ff

ic ult c ha lle ng e fo r the PHE REC . T he B iti ng F ly a ndTi c k Co ntr ol S e c tio n ta c kle s th is challeng e by

conducting basic re sear ch to better understand the pest' s behavior and then use s this information to develop applied contr ol, which rang es fr om trapping sy stems for loca l are a contr ol to insecticidal methods for br oader are a treatment. More re cently , this section also has taken on the lead r ole in attrac tant and re sidual surfac e spray rese arc h to include assessment of barrier and misti ng sy ste ms f or mos qu ito a ndbiting fl y

c on tr ol. Bud get : T he PHE REC bu dg e t in c lud e s a pp ro xima te ly

$1 .2 mil lio n p e r y e ar i n state appr opriations, plus annual g rant funds a vera g ing f rom $200,000 to over $400,000 per y ear

with a hig h of over

$1.4 milli on in FY 2006/07.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 206

M aj orCo nt r ibution s : Some of the more notable achie vements of PHEREC sc ie nti sts arepr ov ide d b e low wi th m a ny mor e a ndde ta ile d d e sc ri pti on s a vaila ble a t http://phere c.org :

• Served a s the state re sear ch, deve lopment, and eva luation cente r for mosquito control pesticides and equipment

• Deve loped and maintaine d the mosquito insecticide resistanc e monitoring sy stem for F lorida

• Deve loped technique s for e valuating mosquito pesticides and resistanc e testing

• De ve lop e d andma int a ine d a no n- targ e t pe sti c idee ff

e c ts lit e ratur e data

ba se

• Deve loped the State dog fly control prog ram

• De ve lop e d tr app ing a ndsu rv e ill a nc e sy ste ms f or pu bli c he a lth arthropods

• Served a s a primary

entomologic al and mosquito control educ ation provider

• Contributed basic and a pplied scientific and extension lit e ratur e on me dic a lly

imp orta nt a

rthr op od s a ndthe ir control

• Served a s an entomolog ical re source and tec hnical service provider f or county , state, and f

eder al ag encie s and for

the pu bli c

• Provided rese arc h to support biologica l and alternative forms of public he alth arthropod c ontrol

• Conducted environme ntal and non-ta rg et impact asse ssment rese arc h and mitigation
F ut ur e Re se ar c h in N e e d of A ddition al F unding : Scientists at P HEREC are op e ratin g in m od e st f

a c ili tie s c on str

uc te d d uringthemid dleof the19 60 s a ndin sever al re novated trailers used a s laboratories. These fac iliti es re quire intensive maintenanc e and have hig h ener g y costs. Moreove r, the Center ’s location on the St. Andrews B ay

exposes the low-ly ing f

acilities to fre quent flooding and wind damag e. Consequently , there is an urg ent nee d to update the building s and insect a nda nim a l r e ari ng fa c ili tie s to be tte r s up po rt thesc ie nti sts . Asin g le , mu lti -l e ve l,C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 207

elevated building is nee ded to house scie ntists, s upport staff, la boratorie s, and equipment so that ene rg y costs can bemanag ed more eff iciently . Construction of a new insect/animal re aring fac ilitywould consolidate a ll rearing in one location so that multi ple buildings do not have to be maintained. A de dicated housing and training fac ilityneeds to be constructe d to enhanc e lea rning opportunities for mos qu ito c on tr ol p e rs on ne l a ndg ra du a te stu de nts . T he c os t f or the se fa c ili tie s is estimated to be $7 million. The following projec ts have be en identified a s imp orta nt i mme diate re se arc h n e e ds :

• Ev a luate e ff

ic a c y of a e ri a l mo sq uit o s pr a y ing on arb ov irus ri sk reduc tion

• Assess the role of wild birds in arbovirus transmissi on

• Calculate the wea

r time for spr ay

nozz les used in mosquito control

• Meteorolog y

and its aff

ects on a eria l spraying

• Determine optimum droplet siz e for differ ent insecticide s and ae rial application equipment

• Evaluate new and exis ting a dulticides on a wide va riety of important species in F lorida

• Veg etative ba

rrier treatments for mosquito control

• Ev a luate ne w m os qu ito a ttr a c ta nts

• I so latio n o f n e w m os qu ito c idal ba c te ri a

• De ve lop a ndte st n e w r e pe lle nts

• De ve lop a ndte st n e w t ra pp ing sy ste ms

• Construction of rec ombinant mosquit ocidal bac teria w ith improved eff icac y
• Deve lopment of alternative larvicide application methods

• Catch basin/re tention pond mosquit o control

• Ef fi c a c y stu die s o f the or g a no ph os ph a te te me ph os a g a ins t sa ltm ars h mosquitoes

• Statewide monitoring for insec ticide re sistance in mosquitoesC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 208

• De ve lop Ag niq ue MMF (a mon omo le c ula

r s ur fa c e fi lm) ® app lic a tio n te c hn iqu e to m ini mize no n- targ e t impa c ts i n s a lt marshes

• Permethrin impact a s potential endocrine disrupter

• I mpact of U LV naled ( Dibrom) on butterf lies

• Establish statewide adulticide drift and deposition monitoring prog ram

• Biolog y

and ec ology

of the ne w invasive spec ies, Culex coronator
11.2.2.2 F lorida Departm ent of Health, Tampa Branch Lab orator y,

Virology Section The F lorida De partment of H ealth, Tampa B ranc h L aboratory , Virolog y Section tests the sentinel chicke n blood from various counties for SLE , EEE, and WNE a nti bo die s c oll e c te d o n a

we e kly or biw e e kly sc he du le . Re su lts arese nt t o a ll mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams b y theF DA CS. T he L abo ratory a lso c oll abo rate s w ith F ME L a ndPHE REC on arb ov ir a l r e se arc h p ro je c ts.
11.2.2.3 F lorida In stitute of Technology Scientists and gr aduate students at the Florida Institut e of Te chnolog y (F I T), a private un ive rs ity

in M e lbo urne , h a ve c on du c te d r e se arc h o n th e e c os y ste m e ff e c ts of mos qu ito c on tr ol s ou rc e re du c tio n p ro je c ts ( e.g. , impoundment manag ement and rota ry ditching) . FIT is now called F lorida Tec h.

11 .2 .2 .4 Uni ve r sity o f F lor ida , I nstit ut e of F oo d and A gr ic ultur al S c ie nc e s,

F lorida Medical Entom ology Lab orator y The Unive rsity

of F lorida (UF ), Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es (IFAS), F lorida Medical Entomology L aboratory

(F MEL ) is located a

bout three m i l es s o u t h o f V er o Be ac h al o n g t h e Ind i an R i v erL ago o n (IRL) o n Fl o ri d a's s u b tro p i ca l ea s tco as t
. T h e l ab o ra t o ry , es t ab l i s h ed i n 1 9 5 6 as t h e E n t o m o l o gy Re se arc h Ce nte r, c on sis ts o f a g ro up of bu ild ing s a mon g 38 a c re s o f an o ak- pa lm fore st, a scrub oa

k-pine for est, and an extensive salt marsh. The fa cilities include about 25,000 squarefee t of modern labor atories, of fice s, a library , a dormitory , an ou tdo or pa vil ion , anda

le c tur e ha ll. Othe r f

a c ili tie s in c lud e a

bio log ic a l sa fe ty le ve l I I I la bo ratory fo r h a nd lin g arb ov irus e s, a n in se c tary fo r h old ing e xotic m o s q u i t o es , a m et al an dwo o d wo rk i n g s h o p , b i o ch em i s tryan dm o l ec u l arb i o l o gy la bo ratorie s, a

g ra ph ic s la bo ratory , a

ph oto g ra ph ic da rk ro om, a nda n anim a l ho us e for small experimental animals. Renovated in 1992, a scr eene d pavilion sits i n the mid st o f a c oa sta l oa

k h a mmo c k f

or us e a s a n o utd oo r m os qu ito c a g e a nda lso is available to acc ommodate up to 150 g uests and students for le cture s. A classroomC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 209

and we t lab arelocated in a building situated on a

tidal cre ek and ne stled among mang roves. The F MEL

site is surrounded by

a 440 ac re pr eserve of similar ha bitats. On the FMEL easte rn boundary , the I RL includes sea g rasse s, shallow sand bottoms, and spoil isl ands, as we ll as bird rookeries. The F lorida F ish and Wil dlife Conservation Commissi on has desig nated an adjac ent rooke ry as one of the ten most im portant rooke ries in the state. Theconver g enceof these ha bitats provides a n e xce pti on a l ou tdo or

c la ssr oo m se tti ng wh ic h a ff or ds stu de nts theop po rtun ity to experiencethe contra sts and simil arities of a ll these habitats. Over 130 specie s of animals and plants havebeen ide ntified, some threatened and endang ere d, inc lud ing theba ld e a g le , manate e , g op he r t ortoi se , c or a l r oo t or c hid , b utt e rf ly or c hid , andbr ome lia ds
. Mission : I n 1979 the Florida L eg islature passe d House B ill 684. This bi ll placed the FMEL

under the UF/IFAS. The L eg islature, throug h House B ill 684, rec og nized the need f

or g reatly expanded re sear ch on the biolog y and contr ol of mosquitoes, especia lly

about the ef

fec ts of insect-borne disea ses on the citizens of F l o r i d a a n di t s t o u r i s ti n d u s try . H o u s e B i l l 6 8 4 m a n d a t e dt h a tt h e F M E L:

• Conduct rese arc h in the biology and contr ol of biting insec ts and oth e r a rthr op od s w hic h a

reimp orta nt t

rans mitte rs of

dis e a se or

pe st an n o y an ce s , gi v i n g s p ec i al at t en t i o n t o t h e n ee d s o f F l o ri d a's mosquito control org anizations (districts, counties, and mun ic ipalit ie s)

• Bea ce nter to train students and pe rsonnel in the entomolog ical a sp e c ts o f p ub lic he a lth , v e te ri na ry sc ie nc e , s a nit a tio n, mos qu ito control, drainag e and ir

rig ation desig n, wetlands mana g ement, and o t h erar ea s o f s er v i ce re q u i ri n g k n o wl ed ge o f m ed i ca l en t o m o l o gy

• Exte ndre se arc h andtr a ini ng to i nte rn atio nal pr og rams The F MEL

is one of the world's la

rg est rese arc h instit utions devoted to the understanding and contr ol of medica lly important biting insects. Modern laboratory

and support fa cilities and ea sy acc ess to natura l habitats offe r an environment c onducive to scie ntific investigation. Over 1,400 peer

revie wed sc ientific publications have been published by FMEL fac ulty and staff in about 100 national and international journals. The FMEL staff of about fif

ty people include s ten Ph.D. fac ulty , eac h of whom is in the Depa rtment of Entomolog y

and Ne matology , UF/IFAS in Gaine sville. The fac ulty include six full profe ssors, two associate profe ssors, and two assistant p r o f e s s o r s . T h e s t a f

f i n c l u d e s s e v e r a l v i s i t i n g s c i e n t i s t s , a f f i l i a t e f a c u l t y, postdoctoral fe llows and eig ht to ten gr aduate students earning M.S. and Ph.D. de g re e s at th e UF . F a c ulty a ndsta ff re pr e se nt an a

rr a y of e xpe rtisec on tribu tin g toC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 210

multi-discipli nary

projec ts that remain the ha llmark of the L aboratory and why the FMEL provides unpar alleled opportunities for study ing ve ctors and ve ctor-borne diseases. R e s e ar c h p r o g r a m s a tt h e F M E L s p a n d i s c i p l i n e s f

r o mm o l e c u l ar

b i o l o g y, biochemistry , phy siology , virolog y , and g enetics to population leve l disciplines like population biology , ecolog y , and epide miology . The prog rams of the FMEL remain true to the philosophy of Dr. Maurice Provost, the first FMEL Direc tor. Th e F ME L

is w e ll kno wnfo r i ts s tr on g fi e ld c omp on e nts a ndtheint e g ratio n o f i ts rese arc h with mosquit o control and public he alth prog rams. The FMEL extension prog ram e mphasizes gathering information, distributing important re sear ch finding s, providing tr aining to clientele in mosquito control, public health and the g e ne ral pu bli c , andc on du c tin g bio log ic a l stud ie s at th e mos qu ito c on tr ol a g e nc ie s. The F MEL

fac ulty areinternationally

rec og nized authorities on the biology of mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease s. Resear ch collabor ations involve leade rs throug hout the U.S. and elsew herein the world. International collaborative projec ts have include d work in Africa, Central and South America , and Asia. Fa culty serve as re viewer s for prof essional journals and se rve a s members of prestig ious gr ant re view pane ls for national a g encie s like the National Institut es of Hea lth (NI H). Seve ral fa culty have be en pre sidents of diffe rent national and international prof

essional societies, and sever al FMEL fac ulty serve on pr of e ssi on a l jo urna l e dit oria l bo ard s a nda s e dit or s- in- c hie f o f l e a din g jou rn a ls. Major P rogram

Are as :

• Biolog y

and contr ol of mosquitoes and sand flies

• Mosquitoes in human-made and natura l container s

• Biotec hnology

to develop improved mosquitocides and remova l trapping to control biting a rthropods

• I nvading mosquitoes and pathog ens with emphasis on the invasion o f F l o r i d a b y Aede s albopictus

• Em e rg ingins e c t- bo rn e dis e a se s w ithfo c us on WNV , St . L ou is ence phalitis virus (SL EV), de ng ue virus (D ENV), V enezuelan e qu inee nc e ph a lit is v irus (V EE V) , ande a ste rne qu inee nc e ph a lit is virus (EEEV)

• Risk assessment and risk manag ement to re duce the impact of exoti c vec tor-bornepathog ens in Florida

• Gene tic ecolog ical and mor phologic al diffe rentiation of mosquitoesC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 211 • I mproving curr ent mosquito control technolog ies

• Biolog y

and epide miology

of arthropod transmitted disease s

• Evaluating and pre dicting F lorida enc ephalitis epidemics

• Modeling of mosquitoes and sand f lies – and the disea ses they car ry

• W e t l a n d s e c o l o g y

• Biolog y

and ec ology

of the IRL

estuary and coa stal wetlands

• Water che mistry

and veg etation dynamics of impounded mar shes

• Wat e r m a na g e me nt andwate r q ua lity iss ue s to re du c e mos qu ito po pu latio ns a ndri sk

fr om m os qu ito -b orne dis e a se

• I mportanceof tidal wetlands and their sy stem manag ement

• Pr ov idi ng handbo ok s, vid e os , f a c t sh e e ts, te c hn ic a l bu lle tin s, brochur es, computer

tutorials, traveling display s, exhi bits, and a bim on thl y

ne ws le tte r c on c e rn ing mos qu ito e s, mos qu ito c on tr ol, a ndpu bli c he a lth

• Ad vanc e d c ou rs e s inme dic a l e nto mol og y a nda dv a nc e d mo sq uit o biology for g raduate students at the UF Bud get : Funding to support FMEL comes fr om ge nera l reve nue funds app ro priate d b y

theF lorida

L e g isl a tur e . A pp ro xima te ly $1 .4 mil lio n instate appropriations provides salary and support of the 10 fac ulty and 16 permanent sta ff. Cu rr e nt ann ua l e xtramur a l f un din g in s up po rt

of mos qu ito re se arc h is approximately

$1,000,000 from the NIH, the DoD, the FDA CS, t he F lorida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection, water manag ement districts, and mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams, a s w e ll a s c ou nty a ndstate a g e nc ie s.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 212

M aj orCo nt r ibution s:

• F M E L

h a s c o n d u c t e dm a n y s t u d i e s o n th e n a t u r a l h i s t o ry, life history , and ec ology

of many of F lorida' s mosquitoes and sand f

ly specie s. Resear ch includes the relative imp orta nc e of

abio tic fa c tor s ( e.g. , weather and tides) and bio log ic a l f

a c tor s ( e.g. , p re datio n and c omp e tit ion ) i n determining the distribution and abundance of pests and vector s. The mating , fee ding, and eg g -laying be haviors of many mosquito and biti ng insect spec ies have been published in numerous scientific r eports. This information has allowe d mosquito control to take advanta g e of the sp e c if ic fe a tur e s o f the bio log y

of imp ortant s pe c ie s to control them more e ffe ctively
.

• Cur re nt s a ltm ars h mana g e me nt p ra c tic e s p e rt a ini ng to mosquito control are in lar g e part based on re sear ch done at the FMEL . The F MEL

pioneer ed envir onmentally sound mosquito control practice s and helpe d to develop ecolog ically

sound manag ement strate g ies to control mos qu ito e s. Th e se pr a c tic e s p ro vid e a be ne fi t to wi de ly differ ent components of the estuarine sy stem, including wading birds, fish, waterfowl, and inve rtebrates – allowing mosquito control prog rams to control saltmar sh mosquitoes with impoundments i nstead of pe sticides. The F MEL staff have be en ac tive in developing policy issues and manag ement strate g y

desig n, testing, and implementation.

• Ma ny tr app ing me tho ds us e d b y mos qu ito c on tr ol t o m o n i t o r b i t i n g f l i e s h a dt h e i r

g e n e s i s a tt h e F M E L, including me thods to assess the fac tors influencing mos qu ito abu nd a nc e that pe rm it m os qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams to control biting flies moreeff ectively . FMEL demonstrated the distance and direc tion of dispersal of mosquitoes by

mark-r elea se-r eca

pture studies that can be utiliz ed by

mosquito control prog rams. The y also tested the use of attractant-baited tra ps for the c ontrol of biting sand fl ie s.

• FMEL

contributed information of how mosquito-borne dis e a se s a retr a ns mitte d andthee pid e mio log y of the se diseases in F lorida. Our unde rstanding of the natural history of SLEV and the role of the vector Culex nigripalpus is based on F MEL rese arc h, including the determination of blood-fee ding pr eferenc es of c ommon F lorida mos qu ito e s. Mu c h o f the inf ormatio n o n WN V i nC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 213 Florida is based on F MEL

rese arc h. These studies pr ovided solid information to mosqui to control prog rams on the relative attrac tion of humans to various spec ies and eff ectively narr owed the f

ocus of c ontrol eff

orts.

• FMEL

develope d a sensitive, simple, and fa st method that can beused by

mosquito control prog rams to detec t EEEV and SLEV in mosquitoes. Scientists verifie d that sentinel chicke ns provide ea

rly warning of

SLEV and WNV transmission to humans.

• FMEL

evaluated the importanc e of e x otic avian spe cies ( i.e ., e mus , r

he a s, pe a fo wl , andpa

rr ots ) a s p os sib le arboviral amplification hosts and eva luated how me te or olo g ic a l f

a c tor s a ndbio log ic a l ( e.g. , larva l c omp e tit ion ) f

a c tor s in fl ue nc e arb ov ir a l tr a ns mis sio n in Florida
.

• Resear ch at the FMEL on the epidemiolog y

and tr a ns mis sio n d y namic s o f a rb ov irus e s h a s le d to ins ig hts into the biologica l and environme ntal conditions that allow e pid e mic s a ndou tbr e aks of ve c tor -b orne dis e a se s.

• I mportant discoveries wer e made on the role of mosquitoes as vec tors of filaria, ar

boviruses, dog heartworm, turkey ma lari a , tu rk e y

po x, a ndoth e r v e c tor -b orne dis e a se s in Florida
.

• FMEL

scientists demonstrated fie ld transmission of W NV b y Cx. nigripalpus, pr ov idi ng e vid e nc e of theabil ity

of thi s sp e c ie s to ve c tor

WNV un de r n a tur a l c on dition s.

• FMEL

develope d an on-line risk map for mosquito control prog rams to use in making decisions on control ope rations ba se d o n a

rb ov irus a c tiv ity

in the ir are a s.

• FMEL

demonstrated g enetic dif fer ence s among vector specie s at morpholog ical, phy siologica l, chromosomal, and biochemica l levels of org anization. Base d on discoverie s ma de a t F ME L , th e rearese ve ral to ols that areno w u se d to identify malaria and virus-c arry ing mosquito specie s that aremorpholog ically

simil ar.

• Protocols for desig ning and operating mosquito-fre e wastew ater

/aquatic plant sy stems and stormwater manag ement sy stems have be en deve loped.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 214

• Th e sp re a d o f the As ia n ti g e r m os qu ito a ndoth e r e xotic pests via tires, flowe r pots, and plants – and the associate d decline in the distribution and abundance of the y ellow feve r mosquito in Florida – we re doc umented. Unde rly ing mechanisms responsible for outcome s of intera ctions betwee n the Asian tig er mosquito and native or resident mosquito species have been disc overe d.

• The natural re ductions (biologic al control) of mosquitoes b y Toxorhynchites , Core thre lla , copepods, ta dpoles, fish, a ndoth e r o rg a nis ms andthe ir imp orta nc e to m os qu ito control has be en demonstrated in sever al studies. Traditional insec ticide eva luations also are perf ormed at FMEL . These e fforts assist Florida mosquito control pr og rams i n e va luatin g a ndimp ro vin g biting fl y c on tr ol.

• F ME L

inv e sti g a te d th e ro le of

nu triti on a l, b ioc he mic a l, g enetic, e ndocrine , and immunological mechanisms that control mosquito development and the tr ansmission of mosquito-borne par asites in Florida . These me thods may be used f or the futur e contr ol of mosquitoes and the para sites they

car ry .

• A peptide hormone, a potential biorational larvicide, f rom Ae . a e gy pti , th a t st op s mo sq uit o la rv a e fr om d ig e sti ng the ir fo od , w a s se qu e nc e d andc lon e d in to the To ba c c o M os a ic Vi rus , res ul ti ng in fi ve p ate nt s fo r t he U F.

• FMEL

scientists make contributions and ke ep abr east of mos qu ito -b orne dis e a se s n ot p re se ntl y c omm on in the U. S. an dFl o ri d a b y

v i s i t i n g an dwo rk i n g b ri ef l y i n fo re i gn countries whe re ma laria, f ilariasis, deng ue, and othe r vector -diseaseproblems ar e common. Workshops and course s taug ht by

FMEL fac ulty arehosted at the labor atory for international students, Florida ' s mosquito control pe rs on ne l, andc omm iss ion e rs .

• FMEL

scientists developed a

mosquito refer encecollection for tea ching specie s identification for mosquito control personne l, started an A dvance d Mosquito I dentification Cou rs e to e arnc e rtif

ic a tio n f ro m th e State of

F lorida a s a “Certifie d Mosquito I dentifier,” and published the 3 rd edition of the F lorida Mosquito Control Handbook
.

• BuzzW

ords is now available on-line at we bsites of the F l o r i d a M o s q u i t o C o n tr o l A s s o c i a t i o n ( F M C A ) , t h e F M E L,C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 215 and the Mosquito I nformation Pag e, http:// mosquito.i fas.uf

l.edu
.
F uture Re searc h in Nee d of Addition al F und ing: The F MEL is a major component of the UF’ s Emerg ing Pathog ens Institut e (EPI ). In 2006 the EPI was awa rded F lorida state support of approximately

$55 milli on for c onstruction of a new f acility , wher e multidiscipli nary work on e merg ing pathoge ns will be cente red, and $7 milli on to hire new fac ulty . The EPI will integr ate and provide a network f or collabor ations betwee n rese arc hers studying a varie ty of pathog ens. Vec tor-bornepathog ens fig ure pr ominently in the EPI

mission and involve re se arc he rs a t th e F ME L

a nda t th e UF

c a mpu s inGaine sv ill e , w he rethefo c us is primarily veterinary

pathog ens and r elated issues. Future re sear ch nee ds include:

• Bt i fi e ld r e se arc h: Bt i is curre ntly one of the approve d microbial insecticide s that is the least tox ic to non-targ et or g a nis ms. Th is s tom a c h p ois on oc c a sio na lly fails to control mosquito larvae in the field, not for its lack of tox icity , but because it is not known when or what the targ et mosquitoes eat and if the habitat nutrients interf ere with Bt i
.

• F ie ld t e sti ng of

theTM OF

(t ry ps in m od ulatin g oo static fa c tor ) h ormon e fo r l arv a l c on tr ol a ft e r c lon ing it i nto differ ent org anisms that survive in the field.

• De te c tio n o f d e ng ue vir us e s inmos qu ito e s b y

PCR, a s th is virus is in Tex as and may ag ain be a

problem for

Florida
.

• The role of larval competition in vector compe tence of ‘w ild ’ F lorida

mos qu ito e s f

or re sid e nt a

rb ov irus e s.

• Fitness ef

fec ts of viral loads on ar

bovirus vector s in Florida.

• Rol e of

pr e datio n inre g ulatin g inv a sio ns by arb ov irus ve c tor s.

• Role of climate and landsca pe ec ology

in determining the coexistence or e x clusion of Ae . a e gy ptiwith Ae . a lbo

pic tus .

• Evaluation of r emoval-tra pping and point-source reduc tion te c hn iqu e s f

or thec on tr ol o f a du lt m os qu ito e s, sa ndfl ie s, a ndoth e r b iti ng fl ie s.

• De ve lop me nt o f a

GI S f or we tland s a ndimp ou nd me nts to s tu d y th e e f f e c ts o f imp o u n d in g o n s e a

g r a s s e s , th e n e xtC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 216 are a whe re mosquito control prog rams may be challeng ed on environmenta l gr ounds and for which ther e ar e no data
.

• Stu die s o f the matin g be ha vio r o f i mpo rt a nt m os qu ito pe sts a nddis e a se ve c tor s, a

po orly un de rs too d to pic that c ou ld provide a key to future c ontrol by

mating disruption.

• Evaluation of a spiration techniques to mea sure the abundanc e of r esting adult mosquitoes.

• Studies of the transmission of malarial pa rasites and try panosomes by

Florida mosquitoes to wading bir ds and b i r d s o f p r e y.

• I nvestig ation of the bionomics of Cul ise ta m e lan ur a a ndits relationship t o EEEV.

• De ve lop me nt o f c omp ute r s y ste ms t o id e nti fy mos qu ito larv a l ha bit a ts s o r e mot e se ns ing c a n b e do ne by mos qu ito control prog rams themselve s.

• Comparison of sentinel chic kens with PCR techniques f or sensitivityand cost for

SLEV and EE EV surve illance.

• Ex pansion/continuation of studies of the dynamics of arbovirus transmissi on and the influe nce of biological and environmenta l variation to improve our unde rstanding and pr e dic tio n o f e pid e mic s.

• Studies to i mprove our know ledg e of how population and sp e c ie s le ve l va

ri a tio n inmos qu ito e c olo g y a ff e c ts population siz e, transmissi on of ar boviruses and othe r para sites, and the ef

fec tiveness of c ontrol methods.

• Molecular

g enetic studies of

Florida mosquitoes to identify c ry pti c sp e c ie s c omp le xes.

• Up datin g a ndc omp le tin g of theF ME L

on -l inemos qu ito identification g uide.

• Ecolog ical and be haviora l studies on newly discovere d mosquito species in Florida to e valuate the ir pest and dis e a se ve c toring po te nti a l.

• Stu die s o n d e ve lop ing me tho ds to e nh a nc e themos qu ito control potential of tadpole s and cope pods.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 217 • Evaluating the ef

fec tiveness of va

rious chemicals and other approa ches f

or re pelling mosquitoes and othe r biting arthropods.
11.2.2.5 University of Flor ida, Wh itney Laboratory for Mar ine Bioscience Th e Whit ne y

L abo ratory

fo r M ari ne Sc ie nc e (Wh itn e y L ab) is l oc a te d inSt. Au g us tin e a ndha s se ve ral f a c ulty inv e sti g a tin g theph y sio log y of mos qu ito disease ve ctors. The rese arc h is primarily on the malaria vec tor Anopheles gambiae and the y ellow fe ver mosquito, Ae . a e gy pti . Projects involve studies on transport phy siology

and ion exchang e in mosquito larvae, the phy siology of a min o a c id t

rans po rt in the mos qu ito mid g ut, a nda nio n r e g ulatio n inthemos qu ito midgut. The rese arc h at the Whitney L ab utiliz es func tional ge nomic approa ches to c ha ra c te ri ze p hy sio log ic a l me c hanis ms i n mo sq uit oe s, pa rtic ula rl y tho se d e a l i n g w i t h d i g e s t i o n . P r o j e c t s e m p l o y m o l e c u l ar

b i o l o g y, b i o c h e m i s try, elec trophy siology , and lase r scanning c onfoca l microscopy . The g oal of the w ork is t o u lti mate ly

pr ov idene w t arg e ts f

or larv ic ide s.
1 1 . 2 . 2 . 6 Un i v er s i ty o f

Mi a mi Severa l fac ulty

at the Univer sityof Miami (UM) in Cora l Gables a re inve stigating thee pid e mio log y , e c olo g y , andc on tr ol o f v e c tor -b orneinf e c tio us dis e a se s w ith emphasis on international and over seas pr ojects. Curre nt resea rch pr ojects ar e conducte d in Keny a and othe r countrie s in Africa and the L atin Americ a Cari bb e a n Re g ion . Pr oje c ts i nc lud e stu die s o n A fric a n malari a l ve c tor s, the ir larva l ecolog y , behavior al and c hemical e colog y , and their ve ctor c ompetencefor ma lari a . T he mos qu ito re se arc h p ro g ram is pa rt of theUM Gl ob a l Pu bli c He a lth Prog ram. This interdisciplinary prog ram involves fa culty throug hout the UM sy stem and empha siz es the de velopment of international disease c ontrol pr og rams.
11 .2 .2 .7 Uni ve r sity o f No r th F lor ida Resear ch at the U niversity of North F lorida in J acksonville is foc used on studies of mos qu ito -a

rb ov irus int e ra c tio ns . T he pr og ram is us inga we ll s tud ie d v irus , Sindbis virus (SINV), to study its int era ctions in various tissues of Ae. ae gy ptiand Ae
. albopictus
. The infe ction proce ss of an a rbovirus is being evaluated using SINV to c ha

ra c te ri ze S INV -a sso c iate d p a tho log y , p e rs ist e nc e , andtis su e sp e c if ic clea ranc e of the virus in the mosquito.
11 .2 .2 .8 Uni ve r sity o f South F lor ida I n 2007 sever al new f

aculty joined the Colleg e of Public He alth University of South Florida (USF ) in Tampa to wor k on vector -borne pathog ens as pa rt of the University ’s Global He alth Prog ram. The primary focus of the re sear ch involvesC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 218

s t u d i es o n m al ar i a, i n cl u d i n g d ru g d ev el o p m en tan dv ec t o r s t u d i es . T h e e co l o gy of arthropod-borneence phalitic viruses is also under inve stigation.
11.2.3 Local Ma ny F lorida mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams c on du c t r e se arc h o n is su e s th a t a ddre ss loc a l ne e ds
. Anastasia Mosqui to Control Distr ict (M CD ) c on du c ts s tud ie s o n mo sq uit o control traps, G I S/GPS for surve illance, de velopment of bioassay techniques, and e va luatio n o f m os qu ito larv ic ide s a nda du lti c ide s. Beach MCD e va luate s a e ri a l pe rm e thrin a pp lic a tio ns a ndba

rrie r t re a tme nts in c oo pe ratio n w ithPHE REC
. Collier MC D is involved in ongoing rese arc h to improve ULV ae rial application equipment and tec hniques, testing of new mosquitocides, re sistance testing of adult mosquitoes, and the integ ration of GI S/GPS into surveillance and aerial op e ratio ns . East F lagler MC D has bee n evaluating PCR technolog y for EEEdetec tion. Ind ian River MCD is d e ve lop ing a GI S us ing Ar c Vi e w f

or its sa ltm ars h manag ement, inspec tion, and larviciding prog ram. F ield inspectors will use hand he ld G PS data

log g e rs . Co lle c te d in fo rm a tio n w ill be joi ne d w iththeI RMCD historic larviciding data ba se. Studies continue to assess the a g e and blood fee ding status of Cx. nigripalpus populations in assessing risk from mosquitoborne pathoge ns, particularly SLEV and WNV. Re se arc h at Lake Coun ty Mosquito Managem ent is i n c oll abo ratio n w ith CMAVE. The spatial distributi on of mosquitoes is being a ssessed utiliz ing the prog ram’s mosquito surveillancedataba se. Lee County MCD has ac tively participated for ove r 30 y ear s in the improvement of larval and adult mosquito control throug h field and la boratory rese arc h prog rams. The rese arc h prog rams haveproduce d publications, patents, and products re lated to larva l para sites and pathog ens, che mical larvic ides and pupicides, g ranula

r and liquid ac tive-ing redie nt delivery sy stems, invasion of exoti c spec ies, disease epidemiolog y , adulticide ef fica cy , and ae rial adulticide spray nozz le cha

rac terization and eff

iciencie s. Resear ch ef

forts pre sently

involve ne w s ur fa c e fi lms fo r c on tr ol o f m os qu ito larv a e a ndpu pa e , a dju vants to f a c ili tate the ef fica cy and spre ading of larvic ides injected into the water stre am during ditch truck a pplications, development of c ontrol-delivery g ranula r formulations of larvicide s, laser- based w ind tunnel char acte rizations of noz zles for ae rial adulticide nozzl es, and va lidation of drift models for a eria l application ofC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 219

adulticides. Spin-off r esea rch a lso has produce d new tec hnologie s in the are as of bio re me diatio n andlub ri c a nts
. ManateeCounty MCD has bee n working on the deve lopment of GI S/GPS for mos qu ito c on tr ol a

pp lic a tio ns a ndop timum dro ple t si zes fo r a e ri a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol. Oka loo saCo unt y M os quit o C ont r ol (MC) is participating in a coope rative projec t with PHEREC to study the surveillanc e and e colog y of WNV and EEEV in w ildbir ds a ndmos qu ito e s. Orange County MC ha s su pp orte d a F ME L M. S. g ra du a te stu de nt t o e va luate WNV surveillance strateg ies in the County . The prog ram is eva luating f actor s that a ff e c t th e mov e me nt o f a du lt Cx. nigripalpus in Orang e County to determine a wi nd ow to s pr a y

fo r the a du lts to a c hie ve ma ximum kil l. P asco County MCD is i nv olv e d inde ve lop ing a c omp ute r- ba se d a du lt m os qu ito su rv e ill a nc e pr og ram a ndinn ov a tiv e sp ray e qu ipm e nt. P inellas Cou nty MC has bee n working with FMEL in evaluating g roundwater le ve ls u sin g hy dr olo g ic mod e lin g to p re dic t f re sh wate r andfl oo dw a te r m os qu ito hatching s. The prog ram uses r otator traps to e valuate pe ak ac tivityperiods for targ e t mo sq uit o s pe c ie s to ta ilo r the ir a du lti c idi ng mis sio ns to c oin c idewi th the se times. Pi nellas County

MC has worked w ith PHEREC on a spec tral imag ing predic tion evaluation projec t. They have analy zed trap data

for a five y ear period to determine se asonality

of mosquito species, compa rability of similar habitat trap results, and e valuation of tra p place ment. Sar as ot a M os quit o M ana ge m e nt c o n d u c t s r e s e ar c h o n t h e b e h a v i o r , e c o l o g y, and contr ol methodologies of container -inhabiting mosquito species, on assessing arbovirus de tection technique s for ope rational use, and on the ovipositional pref ere nces of Psorophora columbiae
. St. Lucie County MC stu die s in c lud e Pe na e id s hrimp lif e his tory , b e nth ic ecolog y of tidal cre ek re storation are as, we tland post-hurricane re storation evaluations, ecolog ical impacts of RIM prac tices on mang roves, mang rove life history in post-wetland re storation are as, impacts of w etland re storation on spotted se a tr ou t sp a wn ing , andus e of imp ou nd me nts fo r m ari ne fi sha ndc la m st oc kin g in the estuary . The prog ram a lso is working on impoundment mana g ement using e nh a nc e d ti da l c ir c ulatio n ande va luatin g mos qu ito ma g ne ts andthea ttr a c ta nts us e d w ithsu c h tr aps . Futu rewo rk wi ll s tud y

tid a l dynamic s inthee stu ary a s it relates to inter-inlet dynamics and the ir role in water qua lity . The prog ram plans to provide tidal data c ollected using telemetry to the South Florida Water Manag ement District as pa rt of a c ooperative hy drodynamic monitoring prog ram.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 220

Santa Rosa MC is participating in a coope rative pr oject with PHEREC to st udy thesu rv e ill a nc e a nde c olo g y of WNV a ndEE EV in w ildbir ds a ndmos qu ito e s. South Walton MCD is participating in a coope rative pr oject with PHEREC to 1) identify vector specie s responsible for

transmission of WNV and EEEV and 2) evaluate the re sidual eff

ectivene ss of insecticide- treated veg etation as a barrier a g a ins t mo sq uit oe s. Volusia Cou nty MC conducts re sear ch on novel c ontrol techniques f or non-biting midge s, i.e ., outdoor lighting alteration and larva l habitat water chemistry ma nip ulatio n. Othe r s tud ie s a rebe ing c on du c te d o n th e imp a c t of sa lt m ars h s po il re sto ratio n e xca vatio n o n v e g e tatio n andfi dd le r c ra b u til izatio n o f alte re d s ite s. The following mosquito control ag encie s submit s oil samples to PHEREC wher e new micr obial pathog ens ar e isolated:

• Amelia I sland Mosquito Cont rol District
• Anastasia Mosquito Control District
• B e a c h M os qu ito Con tr ol D ist ri c t
• Charlotte County

Environmental and E x tension Services
• Citrus Count y

Mosquito C ontrol District
• Colli er Mosquito Control District
• East Fla g ler Mosquito Control District
• Escambia County

Mosquito and Rodent Manag ement Division
• Florida

Key s Mosquito C ontrol District
• Gulf County

Mosquito C ontrol
• I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict
• L ake County

Mosquito/Aquatic Plant Manag ement
• Manate e County

Mosquito C ontrol District
• Miami-Dade CountyMosquito C ontrol
• North Walton Mosquit o Control
• Okaloosa County

Mosquito C ontrol
• Orang e County

Mosquito C ontrol
• Polk C ounty

Mosquito C ontrol
• St. Lucie County

Mosquito C ontrol
• Volusia Mosquito Cont rol District The Ala chua, Polk, Key s, Pasco and Manatee mosquito control prog rams wor k on remote se nsing of

mosquito l arva l habitats with PHEREC , and the Duval, Flag ler, Citrus, Key s, L ee and Volusia mosquito control prog rams conduc t larvicide pr oje c ts i n c oll abo ratio n w ithPHE REC
.C hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 221

11.2.4 P rivate 11.2.4.1 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution , Inc. Har bor B ranc h Oce anog raphic I nstitut ion, I nc., a not- for- profit org anization located on a

pproxi mately

500 acr es along the I RL

in Ft. Pierce , has a c ommitm ent t o u n d e r s t a n da n dp r o t e c tt h e o c e a n s , e s t u ar i e s , a n da d j a c e n tc o a s t a l r e g i o n s . In pa st y e ars , s e ve ral sc ie nti sts we reinv olv e d inthefo llo wi ng a c tiv iti e s r e late d to mos qu ito c on tr ol:

• Water control sy stems and their hy drolog ical and biolog ical impact on impounded marshes and fish communities

• De te rm inatio n o f the e ff e c tiv e ne ss o f v ari ou s a

rtif ic ia l me a ns of

mars h manag ement, such a s culverts and weirs, and the compatibility of water manag ement sche dules with habitat requir ements for differ ent life history stag es of important fish spec ies

• Ef fe c ts o f o rg a no ph os ph or

us mos qu ito ins e c tic ide s o n h a tc hin g fi sh larva e and othe r estuarine zooplankton
11.2.4.2 MoteMarine Laborator y Mote Marine L aboratory , a non-pr ofit private institution i n Sarasota, w ith funding su pp ort f ro m F lorida

De pa rtme nt o f H e a ltha ndRe ha bil itativ e Se rv ic e s ( F DH RS) a ndL e e Cou nty

Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol D ist

ri c t, h a s stud ie d th e e ff

e c ts o f m os qu ito larvicide s on non-targ et inverte brate s and vertebrate larva e. The y conducte d stu die s to de te rm ineif

a e ri a l app lic a tio n o f t e me ph os (A bate ) i s d e trime ntal to ® non-targ et org anisms in a mang rove- fring ed salt marsh in southern Florida . The test org anisms used in the studies werethe marsh f iddler cr ab, Uca rapax

, and the mang rove tre e cr ab, Ar

atu s p iso nii . Their c onclusions are reported in their F inal Report for 1993, Mote Marine L aboratory Tec hnical Report No. 333.


### 1 1 . 3 TH E N EE D F OR COMP ET I TI V E E X TRA MURAL F UNDI NG F OR F LO RI DA' S RES EAR CH LABORATORIES T O SUPP ORT MOSQUITO CONTROL I n 1984, Florida

mosquito control directors re alized that additional funding for rese arc h on mosquito control was nee ded to supplement shrinking budg ets for mosquito control resea

rch. F ollowing a

rec ommendation of the Rese arc h Advisory Commi ttee of the FMCA, F lorida' s mosquito control progr ams dec ided to assign a

portion of their annual state-a ppropriate d operational funds to resea rch. Th ro ug h a

c omp e tit iveg rant p ro g ram, u p to $5 00 ,0 00 a nn ua lly wa s c on tr a c te d to various instituti ons to support neede d mosquito control resea rch. This prog ram wa s e lim inate d in19 91 du e to a state wi de bu dg e t sh ortf

a ll b ut w a s r e -i ns tate d inC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 222

19 96 a t $2 50 ,0 00 . A t th a t ti me , it wa s d e te rm ine d th a t on ly thetw o s tate laboratories, FMEL

and PHEREC, would be elig ible to submitproposals for fu n d i n g. A re view of the Resear ch Chapter in the first edition of the Fl or ida Mo sq uito Con tro l W

hite Pa pe r wi ll s ho w that th e reha ve be e n g re a t st ri de s inthepa st sever al y ear s on many

of the issues listed in that chapte r as r esea rch ne eds. Unfortunately , many

important needs ha ve y et to be addr essed and areag ain listed in this c ha

pte r. Th e ina

bil ity to a ddre ss m a ny

of thelis te d n e e ds is l arg e ly du e to the lack of

adequate monetary

support for r esea

rch. F ME L , PH ERE C, andCMA VEarema nd a te d to pe rf orm r e se arc h o n mo sq uit o c o n tr o l t o r e d u c e m o s q u i t o p e s t s a n dm o s q u i t o - b o r n e d i s e a s e . A l l h a v e f a c u l t y, staff, and fac iliti es to investigate mosquito biol og y and provide rese arc h for ne w e ff e c tiv e , e c on omi c a l, ande nv ir on me ntally so un d c on tr ol m e tho ds . Si nc e its e sta bli sh me nt, F ME L

ha s se c ur e d f

e de ral, s tate , and

c ou nty g rants a ndc on ta c ts for its support. FMEL

ranks among the leading UF/IFAS units in productivity and extramural support but has experienc ed re ductions in its s tate g ener al re venue f or technical and oper ational support. PHEREC has rec eived f unding f rom state and local g overnme nts, as well as industry for many y ear s. More re cently , it has rec eived f unds from the fe dera l gove rnment. PHEREC was transf err ed fr om the F DH RS to theF AM U i n 1 99 2. Sin c e that ti me , th e reha s b e e n n o g ro wth c omp e ns a tin g fo r i nf

latio n inthebu dg e t f

or op e ratin g theCe nte r. B oth laboratories nee d additional reve nues to ac complish their respe ctive mandates and provide F lorida mosquito control and public hea lth professionals esse ntial new information to improve F lorida’s c apabilities to control mosquitoes and mosquitoborne pathoge ns. It is im perative that the state mosquito resea rch pr og ram a dmi nis te re d b y

F DA CS, B ur e au o f E nto mol og y a ndPe st C on tr ol, be inc re a se d to past funding levels of $500,000 in orde r to meet the g rowing demands for more rese arc h to improve Florida ’s ca pabilities for mosquito control. The cur rent spending level of $250,000 is inade quate f or the ne eds and c an support approximately

four to six projec ts out of fifteen to twe nty projec ts submit ted a n n u a l l y. With ou t st

ro ng fu nd ing su pp ort f

or re se arc h, thesc ie nti sts a t th e un ive rs ity laboratories will be forc ed to see k rese arc h support in other more r eadily funded are as that may

be re moved from the immediate needs of Florida mosquito control and public health. Already , mosquito control is l osing some of its effe ctive insecticidal we apons due to re sistance, hig her a pplication costs, or the pe rce ived conce rns that some che micals and/or tec hniques may be harmful to the environment. Mo sq uit o c on tr ol d oe s n ot h a ve a pr omi sin g fu tur e fo r p ro te c tin g F lorida ' s p ub lic without resea

rche rs sea rching for innovative te chnolog y and verify ing the ir safe use. The thr eat of

more mosquitoes and the pathoge ns they car ry will affe ct the well-be ing of

Florida residents and tourists. I t is certain that F lorida is at g reatC hapt er 11: M os qui t o C ont rol R es ear ch Page 223

risk from eme rg ing pathoge ns, like WNV, that demands Florida be be tter pre pare d to e ff e c tiv e ly mit ig a te a n impe nd ing , p ote nti a lly c a ta str op hic e pid e mic . Witho ut a str on g mos qu ito c on tr ol e ff ort, b a c ke d b y

a su pe ri or dynamic re se arc h e ff

ort, Florida will become an incre asing ly uncomforta

ble and dang erous plac e to live and visit.C hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 224 

## Chap ter 12 EDUC ATION, EX TENSI ON, AND OUTREA CH

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r : D r . R o x a n n e C o n n e lly 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r : D r . C h a r lie M o r r is

Summ ary This chapter describes the ne eds for and the impleme ntation me tho ds us e d to e du c ate an d in for m m os qu ito c on tro l wo rke rs, re late d p ro

fe ssi on als , a nd

the pu bli c ab ou t m atte rs re late d to mosquito control in Flori da. W e desc ribe the organizations involved and the techniques use d for extending k nowledge ap prop ria te to s e le c t au die nc e s.



### 12 . 1 INTRODUCTION An important component of F lorida mosquito control is to increase the understanding of mosquito control worker s, other prof essionals, and the g ener al pu bli c on matte rs re late d to mos qu ito bio log y , e c olo g y , c on tr ol, a nddis e a se transmission. This effort is ac complished throug h education, ex tension, and ou tr e a c h p ro g rams. 

### 12 . 2 EDUC ATION Education focuses on incr easing the profe ssionalism of all mosqui to control wo rk e rs . F ou r a g e nc ie s d e dic a te sig nif ic a nt time to this e ff

ort:

• Florida

Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s, Bur eau of Entomology

and Pest Control

• Florida

Mosquito C ontrol Association

• University

of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es, Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory

• Florida

Ag riculture and Mechanical Univer sity , J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Public Health Resea

rch and Education CenterC hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 225



### 12. 2. 1 Fl ori da D epart ment of A gri cul t ure and C onsumer Servi ces, B ureau of

E nt omol ogy and Pest C ont rol The F lorida De partment of A g riculture and Consumer Service s (FD ACS), Bure au of Entomology

and Pest Control is the principle ce rtifier of mosquito control personne l in the public health categ ory of ce rtified pesticide applicator s. The Bur eau of fer s three to f

ive one- or two-day

workshops throug hout the state ea ch y ear . The purposeof these w orkshops is to prepar e people to take and pa ss the Public Health Certification ex am. Th e B ur e au o ff

e rs tw o ty pe s o f c e rtif

ic a tio n: b a sic anda dv a nc e d. On ly theba sic e xam i s n e e de d to be c omec e rtif ie d. Th e a dv a nc e d e xam w a s d e sig ne d f or tho se who wish to test their knowledg e bey ond the basic le vel. These classes a re offe red f reeof cha rg e.


### 12. 2. 2 Fl ori da M osqui t o C ont rol A ssoci at i on The F lorida Mosquito Control Association (FMCA), throug h its Education Coordination Comm ittee (ECC), provides training in mosquito biology and control bey ond the basic le vel. Formed in 1995 in response to an incre asing demand f or g ener al and spe cialized training , the ECC integr ates many association educational projects and maintains an annua l budge t to fund the educ ational projec ts of its nine subcommitt ees. The princ iple subcommittee, the Dodd Short Course Subcommittee, org anizes and prese nts three ty

pes of c ourses: Annua l, Reg ional, and Specia lty . The Annua l Dodd Short Courses consist of 15 to 30, 1⁄2- to 41⁄2-day course s, all of which a

re held during one we ek in J anuary or F ebrua

ry . The c ourses a

re de signe d for specific g roups such a s new e mploy ees, c lerica l staff, biolog ists and entomologists, inspector- spray ers, a dminist rators, c omputer per sonnel, mechanics a nde qu ipm e nt o pe rator s, e le c te d c omm iss ion e rs , anddir e c tor s o f m os qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams. Th e c ou rs e s c ov e r a wi de rang e of

top ic s r e late d to mos qu ito c on tr ol, bu t e a c h y e ar a

fe w n on -m os qu ito re late d c ou rs e s a reof fe re d to inc re a se the g ener al abilities of mosquito control staff. Examples of such c ourses include Public Speaking, My ers- Brigg s persona lityevaluation, St ormwate r Certification, and computer

applications softwa

re instruc tion. Most courses have maxi mum enrollments and e mphasize student participation. Fie ldwork is included in many of the biolog y

course s. Emplo y e e s o f m os qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams, un ive rs ity fa c ulty a ndsta ff , s tate a g e nc y sta ff , manu fa c tur e r anddis tribu tor re pr e se ntativ e s, a ndoth e r i nd ivi du a ls volunteer to tea ch at the annual Dodd Short Courses. The non- mosquito related course s are often c ontrac ted with a private consultant for a fe e. Eac h course car

ries one to sixt een c ontinuing educ ation units (CEUs) for rec ertification in either the public hea lth or the aquatics cate g ories of the Florida Pesticide Applicator Ce rtification prog ram that is manag ed by FDA CS, Bureau ofC hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 226

Entomology

and Pest Control. Annual attendance avera g es over 285 people. The vast majority

of the c ourse f

ees a re use d to financethe annua l Dodd Short Cou rs e s, a ndthere ma ind e r i s u se d to fi nanc e pr oje c ts o f s e ve ral othe r E CC Sub c omm itt e e s. The Dodd Short Course Subcommittee a lso org anizes Reg ional Short Courses and Specialty Short Courses. The Reg ional Short Courses supplement the annua l course s and ar e intended f or mosquito control prog rams with limited travel budg ets that preve nt them from taking advanta g e of the annual c ourses. Reg ional c ou rs e s a rede sig ne d f

or a sp e c if ic g ro up of

mos qu ito c on tr ol p e rs on ne l, particula rly veter an inspec tor-spray ers, who w ork in a re g ion of the state suc h as the southwest or Panhandle. Howe ver, c ourses c an be a rrang ed for

any g roup ne e din g tr a ini ng . Wh ile a tte nd a nc e is n ot l imi te d to e mpl oy e e s inthere g ion , mo st attendee s work within a one- hour commute to the c ourse site. Reg ional course s areorg anized and pre sented whe n reque sted by mosquito control prog ram direc tors, have tuition, and ar e desig ned to provide CEUs f or ce rtified applicators. Specialty Dodd Short Courses dea l with a specific and ofte n highly technical topic, such as " Rece nt Advance s in Aerial Application of Mosquitocides" and "G eog raphic I nformation Sy stems for Mosquito Control”. The instructors a re ty pic a lly ou t- of -s tate e xpe rt s w ho areno t a vaila bledu ri ng thea nn ua l sh ort c ou rs e wee k or whose subje ct is of intere st to many people who te ach at the annual c ou rs e s. Atte nd a nc e is o pe n, bu t mo st s pe c ia lty c ou rs e a tte nd e e s a

redir e c tor s, su pe rv iso ry

pe rs on ne l, andsp e c ia lis ts. Spe c ia lty c ou rs e s h a ve a

tui tio n, us ua lly car ry CEUs for c ertified pe sticide applicators, and ar e org anized as opportunities ari se or by re qu e st t o th e ECC
. The Ae rial Training Subcommittee of the ECC is responsible for deve loping training course s and manua ls, fly -ins, and spec ialty short course s that meet the mosquito control related ne eds of pilots and other a eria l application re late d p e rs on ne l. T he F MCAAe ri a l Sh ort Co ur se is a thr e e -d a y sh ort c ou rs e held eve ry

J anuary that provides information on basic ae rial application techniques, ne w technolog ies, curr ent re sear ch, chang es in reg ulations/label lang uag e, and unique perspe ctives fr om a wide r ang e of mosquito control prog rams. The course attrac ts attendee s not just from Florida but fr om all parts of theUn ite d St a te s, a s w e ll a s Cana da , A us tr a lia , and Eu ro pe . Anu mbe r o f p ilo ts bring the ir

a ir c ra ft , c omp le te wi th u niq ue sp ray e qu ipm e nt s e tup s. Th e se course s offe r CEUs in the public hea lth and/or ae rial categ ories. An informal subg roup, the F lorida Mosquito Control P ilot's Association, rece ntly formed solely to addre ss pilot and flight saf ety aspec ts of aerial application.C hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 227



### 12. 2. 3 U ni versi t y of

Fl ori da, Inst i t ut e of

Food and A gri cul t ural Sc i en ce s, Fl or i da M ed i ca l Ent om ol og y L ab or at or y The Unive rsity

of F lorida (UF ), Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es (IFAS), F lorida Medical Entomology L aboratory

(F MEL ) ce lebrated fifty

y ear s of dedicated re sear ch on mosquitoes and biting f lies in 2006. L ocate d on Florida ’s east c oast in Vero B eac h, the FMEL started out as the Florida State Boa

rd of Hea lth’s Entomologica l Resear ch Center (ERC) in 1956. Th e F ME L

of fe rs theAd vanc e d M os qu ito I de nti fi c a tio n andCe rtif ic a tio n Co ur se eac h spring . This two-wee k course provides intense training in the identific ation of a du lt andlarv a l mo sq uit oe s o f N orth A me ri c a . Stud e nts wh o p a ss the e xams re c e ivea c e rtif ic a tio n f ro m th e UF . F ME L

a lso pr ov ide s many

op po rtun iti e s to earn CEUs in public health throug h their L ectur e Serie s which includes se minars from national and international g uest speake rs on topics of importanc e to medica l e nto mol og y

a ndmos qu ito c on tr ol. Th e F ME L

ma int a ins thr e e we bs ite s o f i nte re st t o mo sq uit o c on tr ol p ro fe ssi on a ls: 1 ) http:// fmel.ifas.uf

l.edu has conte nt relate d to the FMEL rese arc h pr og rams, fa c ulty

a ndsta ff , andF ME L

pu bli c a tio ns . 2 ) http:// eis.ifas.ufl.e du , th e En c e ph a lit is Inf ormatio n Sy ste m, provides risk maps a nd risk assessments for EEE, SLE, and WNE transmission in Florida. 3 ) http:// mosquito.i fas.uf l.edu provides information on doz ens of mos qu ito -r e late d to pic s. Th e IF AS E le c tr on ic Data I nf ormatio n So ur c e , E DI S, i s a c oll e c tio n o f f

a c t sh e e ts writt e n f or theg e ne ral pu bli c on a

wi de va ri e ty of top ic s ( http:// edis.ifas.ufl.e du ). FMEL fac ulty contribute e x tensively

to this collection on subjects including Mo sq uito Co ntr

ol D e v ic e s a nd

Se rv ic e s fo r Flor ida Ho me own e rs, St. Lou is Ence phalitis in Florida, W

est Nile Virus in Flor ida, Lyme Disease in Florida, Saltmarsh Mosquito Management, and Mo sq uito R e pe lle nts . Ex tension Specialists continually

add new topics important for F lorida re sidents. FMEL fac t sheets ar e available in Eng lish and Spanish. A basic mosquito identification cour se for the staff of mosquito control operations became so popular that it outg rew the spac e available at F MEL . This and other course s are now offe red y early at the F MCA’s annual Dodd Short Courses w here FMEL fac ulty and staff fre quently

serve as cour se org anizers and lec turers.C hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 228



### 1 2 . 2 . 4 F l o r i d a Ag r i c u l t u r e a n d Me c h a n i c a l Un i v e r s i t y, J o h n A. M ul rennan, Sr. Publ i c H eal t h E nt omol ogy R esearch and Educ at i on Cent er Florida Ag riculture and Mechanical Univer sity(F AMU), John A. Mulrennan, Sr. Pub lic He a lthEn tom olo g y Re se arc h andEd uc a tio n Ce nte r ( PHE REC ), in P a nama City , provides an annual, three -day training event in F ebrua

ry known as the Southeast Reg ional Public Health Pest and Ve ctor Mana g ement Confer ence . The confe renc e consists of a half-day plenary session featuring g uest speake rs f o l l o w e db y s e v e r a l c o n c u rr e n t , h a n d s - o n w o rk s h o p s t au g h tb y P H E R E C f a c u l t y, sta ff , andg ue st s pe ake rs . PH ERE C pr ov ide s c on tin uin g e du c a tio n f or mos qu ito control and e nvironmental hea lth professionals in the southeaste rn states and fre quently

provides tra ining at the annual Ta llahassee -base d FAMUPest Control Field Day held for pe st control profe ssionals during the first wee k in November
. Periodically , PHEREC host s technolog y transfe r seminar s on timelytopics of interest to re sear cher s and control pe rsonnel in north F lorida. I n the ar ea of

extension publ ications, PHEREC produces an extension series ref err ed to as “ EntGuides”on public he alth arthropods and related topics for mosquito control personnel and the public. Along the same lines, PHEREC produce s “Tec hnical Memoranda” that outline procedur es for testing insec ticide resistanc e in mosquitoes. These and other important ac tiviti es ar e posted in the Center’ s quarterly

newsletter , PH

ER EC N e ws , anda t th e Ce nte r’ s w e b s ite http://phere c.org . 

### 12 . 2. 5 In du st ry Sh or t Cour se s Some mosquit o control produc t distributors offer f ree ad hoc sh ort c ou rs e s o pe n to the ir c us tom e rs a ndto o the r m os qu ito c on tr ol p e rs on ne l. T he se c ou rs e s o ft e n a lso car ry CEUs for the Public He alth Certification.


### 12 . 3 EXT ENSI ON Be y ond course s, the FMCA, F MEL , and PHEREC offer other e x tension service s to assist Florida mosquito control prog rams. The se services va ry from produc ing a bi- mon thl y

ne ws le tte r t o c on du c tin g mul ti- y e ar r e se arc h o n s pe c if ic pr ob le ms. The W ing Be ats Mag azine Subcommitt ee of the ECC publishes a quarterly trade mag azine for mosquito control profe ssionals in conjunction with the American Mosquito C ontrol Association (AMCA). It is curre ntly distributed to over 3,600 p eo p l e i n t h e U n i t ed S t at es , C an ad a, L at i n Am er i ca , an do v er s ea s . T h i s 4 0 -p age color mag azine contains articles of intere st to operational mosquito control personne l. Advertising has fully supported the pr oduction and distribution of the ma g a zinesin c e its inc e pti on in 1 99 0, y e t a dv e rtise me nts take up no mor e than h a lf the pag es. In fac t, the mag azine operates in the black, and, along with the annual Do ddSho rt

Cou rs e s, su pp orts the oth e r e du c a tio na l pr oje c ts o f the ECC
.C hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 229

Since 1990, the F MEL , in cooper ation with the FDA CS and the FMCA, has produce d and distributed a bi-monthly newsletter , BuzzW

ords . It is c ur

re ntl y distributed to over 1,300 mosquito control profe ssionals in Florida and thr oug hout the United States. The ne wsletter c ontains short communications on all aspec ts of mosquito bi ology

and contr ol, including announceme nts of meeting s, signific ant chang es in personne l, employ ment opportunities, news items, obituaries, and of fi c ia l maili ng s o f the F MCAto i ts m e mbe rs . It is auto matic a lly se nt t o F MCA members and is available by reque st to any one in the United States fr ee of char g e. 

### 12 . 4 ASSI STANCE TO MOSQUITO CONTROL P RO G RA MS F ME L fa c ulty , PH ERE C f

a c ulty , s c ie nti sts a t th e USD A C e nte r f or Me dic a l, Ag ri c ultur a l, andVe te ri na ry En tom olo g y

(C MA VE ) i n G a ine sv ill e , andmos qu ito control per sonnel work with or a ssist m any other mosquito control prog rams on rese arc h and demonstration projects of mutual intere st. Projects are numerous and varie d, rang ing f

rom computer sy stem setup, equipment re pair and calibration, char acte rizing mosquito problems, and eva luating c ontrol methods to conducting arbovirus surveillance
. 

### 1 2 . 5 OUT REA CH F lorida mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g rams h a ve se ve ral a c tiv iti e s to inf orm th e pu bli c abo ut the natur e of

the ir pr og rams, thene e ds fo r andbe ne fi ts o f m os qu ito c on tr ol, a ndthere latio ns hip be tw e e n mo sq uit o c on tr ol ande nv ir on me ntal a ndhe a lth ag encie s. These e fforts include school prog rams, talks bef ore loc al clubs and g roups, exhibit s at local e vents, literature , house ca lls, and public service a nn ou nc e me nts
. School prog rams rang e fr om three f ull-time teache rs on staff

to ad hoc prese ntations to classes upon re quest. The L ee County Mosquito C ontrol District (L CMCD ) p a y s th e sa lary of tw o f ull -time te a c he rs e mpl oy e d b y theL e e Cou nty Sc ho ol B oa

rda nda thi rdfu ll- tim e ins truc tor

e mpl oy e d b y

F lorida Gu lf Coa st University . These e ducator s teac h wee k-long units of studyand instruct tea cher s on how to prese nt exercises that include ma jor components on the c ontrol of mos qu ito e s. Pr og rams a

repr e se nte d to fi ft

h andse ve nthg ra de sc ie nc e stu de nts and hig h school biology

and che mistry

classes. Mor e ty

pical school prog rams ar e one- to two-hour

prese ntations by

one or moremosquito control employ ees w ho have othe r duties. These lessons often havea fie ld component and ty pically focus on thi rd -, fo urth- , andfi fth- g ra de c la sse s. Th e le sso ns area s v ari e d a s th e pe op le who teac h them. Mosquito control prog rams havestaff me mbers who makeprese ntations to local c lub s a ndsp e c ia l in te re st g ro up s o n r e qu e st. Se ve ral y e ars a g o, a mos qu ito biology and contr ol speake rs list was proposed, but the idea was ne ver de veloped.C hapt er 11: Educ at i on, Ext en s i on and O ut re ach Page 230

All prog rams havea telephonenumber that c itiz ens may call to re quest spraying or fi ndou t mo rea

bo ut the mos qu ito c on tr ol p ro g ram. S e ve ral pr og rams a dv e rtise this number and eve n notify the media of

when and wher e spray ing w ill be conducte d for the ne x t day or we ek. L eon County

Mosquito C ontrol has a unique w ay of informing the public. They take a school prog ram one step furthe r by using sc hool children a s the talent in a TV -b a se d p ub lic se rv ic e a nn ou nc e me nt s e ri e s th a t ha s b e e n v e ry e ff e c tiv e in educating the public a

bout container -inhabiting mosquitoes that are a major problem in Tallaha ssee. Many prog rams deve lop their own literatur e or use literature develope d by the F DA CS, FME L , andPHE REC to i nf orm c iti zen s h ow the y

c a n a ssi st i n controlling mosquitoes, what service s they offe r, and how citizens can take a dv a nta g e of

the ir se rv ic e s. Lite ratur e may be dis tribu te d a s d oo r kno b h a ng e rs , bookmarks, or f

act she ets and is made available in a va riety of plac es, including bookstores, libraries, schools, banks, and othe r locations where the public may encounte r the literature. Severa l prog rams take advanta g e of spa ce ma de available at loca l fairs and fe sti va ls b y

e re c tin g a n e xhibi t th a t e du c a te s p e op le abo ut m os qu ito e s a ndthe ir control. The e x hibit may be of the ir own making , one of the two develope d by FMEL for use by

local prog rams, or onedevelope d by other prog rams. Literature re late d to thee xhibi t may be a vaila blefo r v isi tor s to take wi th the m. The thrust of a ll these public educ ation prog rams is to let the public know that they can e ffe ctively

help pre vent mosquitoes in urban ar eas by eliminating larval ha bit a ts i n th e ir

y ard s.C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 231 

## Chap ter 13 HOW F LORIDA MOSQUITO CONTROL IS

REGULATED

C h a p te r C o o r d in a to r : D oug C ar l s on a nd J am e s C l aus on 1 9 9 8 C o o r d in a to r s : D oug C ar l s on a nd R andy D om i ny
Summ ary The regulation of mosquito controlin Florida poses a unique set of circumstance s. In Florida, mosquito control fr equently re quires ground or aerial applications of pesticides in highly populated are as . Th us , th e po te nti al f or hu ma n e x po su re to t

he pe sti c ide s is high. Also, mosquito control i s frequently carried out ne ar water bo die s o r we tla nd

s, are as whi c h a re c on sid e re d e nv iro nm e nta lly sensitive. Since the succ ess of an adulticide application relies heavily on drift to reach the targe t, label violation concerns about off-target movem ent and env ironmental impacts are com mon. Enforceme nt of the label is necessary to e nsure that no unreasonable adve rse effec ts occur. Howev er, the same enforce ment and registration requirements designe d to protect human health and the env ironment can limit mosquito control’s effective ness. This chapter willexplore the various agenc ies and laws w hich regulate mosquito control in Florida.


### 13 . 1 AGENCY I NV OLV EMENT AN D ENFORCEMEN T 13.1.1 F lorida Departm ent of Agriculture and Consu m er Ser vices Chapter 388 F lorida Statutes (F .S.) addre sses mosquito control by stating that Florida ’s policy

is to achieve and maintain ade quate a rthropod contr ol to protect hu ma n h e a ltha ndsa fe ty , f os te r the qu a lity

of lif e , p ro mot e e c on omi c de ve lop me nt, a nda llo w f or thee njo y me nt o f i ts n a tur a l attr a c tio ns . T his po lic y is to be ac hieved by

cre ating mosquito control prog rams to re duce populations of pestifer ous and disease -vec toring arthropods and is to be car ried out in a manne r c on sis te nt w ithpr ote c tio n o f the e nv ir on me nt. Th us , Ch apte r 3 88 F .S. fi rs t establishes the ne cessity

of mosquito control and g oes further in re quiring that control mea sures be consistent with environmental law s. Enforc ement of mos qu ito c on tr ol a c tiv iti e s is ne c e ssa ry to e ns ur e that a ll r e g ulatory re qu ir e me nts areme t.C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 232

Chapter 388 F .S. authorizes mosqui to control offic es to do whate ver is nec essary to c on tr ol all s pe c ie s o f m os qu ito e s a ndoth e r a rthr op od s o f p ub lic he a lth importance as long as that work is not inconsistent with Chapter 388 or othe r pertinent leg islation. Cont rol can be ac hieved throug h reduc ing loc ations where mosquitoes are pr oduced or by the application of chemica ls which areapprove d by the Florida Depa

rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s (FD ACS). The Fe dera l I nsecticide , Fung icide and Rode nticide Act ( FI FRA), a s well as Chapter s 388 and 487 F .S., establish the primary require ments which F DACS must enforce
. 13.1.2 United States Environme ntal Pr otec tion Agency FIFRA g overns the distribution, sale, and use of pe sticides in the United States wi th the U. S. E nv ir on me ntal Pr ote c tio n A g e nc y (E PA) a dmi nis te ri ng the se reg ulations. FIFRA g rants sig nificant re g ulatory latitude to the states, and many states have laws which mirr or the F eder al re g ulations. Throug h a coope rative eff ort, the EPA and the states work tog ether to ensure that reg ulatory

compliance is achieve d.


### 1 3 . 2 REG I ST RAT I ON Under FIFRA, the EPA is re sponsible for re g istering new pe sticides and ensuring that, w he n u se d a c c or din g to l abe l di re c tio ns , th e y wi ll n ot c aus e un re a so na ble adver se ef

fec ts to human health or the e nvironment. Only pesticides re g istered under F IFRA c an be distributed or sold. Pe sti c idere g ist

ratio n d e c isi on s a

reba se d p ri mari ly

on EPA ' s e va luatio n o f the te st data whic h is provided by the applicants. This test data allows for a determination of wh e the r a

pe sti c ideha s th e po te nti a l to c aus e a dv e rs e e ff e c ts t o h umans , wi ldl if e , f ish , andplants , in c lud ing e nd a ng e re d s pe c ie s. A r e g ist rant i s r e qu ir e d to su bmi t to theEPAa ll f

a c tual in fo rm a tio n r e g ard ing un re a so na blea dv e rs e environmenta l effe cts. It further g rants EPA the authority to canc el the reg istration of a pe sticide if it cause s unrea sonable a dverse eff ects on the environment. How ever , the EPA is require d to take into acc ount the product’s economic be nefits. F IF RA ’s Se c tio n 2 4 a llo ws e a c h s tate to r e g ulate thesa le or us e of a ny fe de rally re gi s t er ed p es t i ci d e o r d ev i ce . I n Fl o ri d a t h i s re gu l at i o n i s en ab l ed t h ro u gh Chapter 487 F .S. and require s annual re newa l. Reg ulations pertaining to pesticide reg istration in Florida a

ppear in Chapter 5E-2 of

the Florida Administrative Code (F AC).C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 233



### 13 . 3 AUTHORITY Se c tio n 3 88 .3 61 e sta

bli sh e s F DA CS a s th e a g e nc y to a dmi nis te r ande nf

or c e a ll rules under

the Mosquito Cont rol L aw. F DACS also is charg ed with adopting ru le s p ro vid ing fo r t

he fo llo wi ng : 1. Criteria to demonstrate that arthropod population levels constitute a pu bli c he a lthor

nu isanc e pr ob le m. 2. Criteria re g arding aerial spraying of pesticides on private lands wh ic h mi nim ize de po sit iona ndthepo te nti a l f or su bs ta nti a l a dv e rs e e ff e c ts. 3. Requirements that a ll arthropod contr ol pesticides, including adulticides and la

rvicides, be used only

in acc ordanc e with the reg istered labe ling or

be other wise ac cepte d by the EPA or F DA CS. 4. Protection of the he alth, safe ty , and we lfareof arthropod control employ ees, the g ener al public, and F lorida’s natural re source s. FDA CS can adopt rules w hich ar e more stringe nt than the EPA’s labe l re qu ir e me nts . F DA CS e sta bli sh e s c ri te ri a

fo r l ic e ns ing of

a ll p ri vate a ndpu bli c arthropod c ontrol applicators and prog ram dire ctors. F DACS require s that applicator s report their ac tiviti es. Howe ver, lice nsing or certification is not require d for private individuals controlling a rthropods on their own r esidential or a g ri c ultur a l pr op e rty . F DA CS auth orize d in sp e c tor s c a n e nte r u po n any pr op e rty to inspect rec ords or lands in orde r to investigate complaints, and F DACS has the authority to cooper ate with fe dera l and other state ag encie s as appr opriate. Florida ’s leg islatively -established Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control (F CCMC ) h a s th e re sp on sib ili ty to d e ve lop a ndimp le me nt g uid e lin e s to a ssi st F DA CS inre so lvi ng dis pu te s a ri sin g ov e r the c on tr ol o f a rthr op od s o n p ub lic ly owned lands. A nother ke y issue on which the F CCMC provides rec ommendations is aeria l spraying in whic h a g oal is to mini miz e envir onmental harm. FCCMC has the authority to desig nate subc ommitt ees to a ssist i n car rying out their re sponsibili ties. The Subcommittee on Mana g ed Mar shes (SOMM) is such a c omm itt e e c ha

rg e d w ithpr ov idi ng te c hn ic a l a ssi stanc e a nd g uid a nc e on sa lt m ars h ma na g e me nt p la ns a ndde ve lop ing a ndre vie wi ng re se arc h p ro po sa ls f or mos qu ito so ur c e re du c tio n te c hn iqu e s.C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 234



### 13 . 4 ENFORCEMENT AC TI ONS AND V IO LATI ONS Section 388.3711 outlines enforc ement ac tions that FDACS may take: 1. FDA CS i s authorized to enforc e Chapter 388 including r equesting that a cir cuit court g rant an injunction. 2. It can de ny , suspend, or re voke any license or

certification, or the disbursal of state aid, in accor dancewith the provisions of Chapter 120. 3. I f F DACS finds a violation to be sever e, it can de ny , revoke , or su sp e nda c e rtif ic a tio n o r l ic e ns e or

thedis bu rs a l of

state a id. It a lso can pla ce the offe nding pa rty on probation for

up to 2 y ear s. 4. It may

impose an administrative fine not exceeding $500 for e ach violation of any

of this chapter ’s provisions. When determining a penalty , fac tors such as the se verity of the violation or the probability

that death or

serious harm may

occur areconsidere d. An arthropod control prog ram may

cooper ate with anothe r county , district, or municipality , but it mustfirst be a

pproved by

FDA CS.


### 13 . 5 STORAGE AND HAND LI NG REQUIREMENTS Part 19 of F IFRA a ddresse s storag e, disposal, transportation, and re call of pesticides. This cha

pter a llows the EPA to require r eg istration information re g ard ing sa festo ra g e a nddis po sa l. It a lso a llo ws theEPAto e sta bli sh require ments for the transportation, storag e, and disposal of the pesticide, any container of the pe sticide, any

rinsate c ontaining the pesticide, or any other m a t e r i a l u s e dt o c o n t a i n o r c o l l e c te x c e s s o r

s p i l l e dq u a n t i t i e s o f

t h e p e s t i c i d e . In addition, the reg istrant may be re quired to show evide nce of sufficie nt finance s and re source s to carry

out a re call and subse quent disposition i f nec essary . Pesticide Manag ement and D isposal Reg ulations were addre ssed initiallyin the 1988 amendments to Section 19 of F IFRA. The se ame ndments expanded the auth ority of EPAto r e g ulate thesto ra g e , tr a ns po rt a tio n, a nddis po sa l of pe sti c ide s, container s, rinsates, and c ontaminated materials. This amendment also ende d EPA' s require ment to acc ept cancele d and suspende d pesticides for disposal and direc ted the Ag ency

to develop new reg ulations gove rning the re call of pe sticides. New c ontainer de sign and residue r emoval re g ulations also wereimplemented. Threephases we re e stablished to handle the task of writing pesticide mana g ement a nddis po sa l r e g ulatio ns :C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 235 • Phase I established re call plans, re quirements for storag e of r ecalled pesticide, stora g e and disposal plans, inde mnification proce dures, and transportation requireme nts for suspende d and cancele d products.

• Pha se I I

fo c us e d o n p e sti c idec on ta ine r andc on ta inm e nt r e qu ir e me nts a nde sta bli sh e d r e sid ue re mov a l a ndc on ta ine r r e fi lli ng pr oc e du re s, desig n standards to promote c losed sy stems, construction standar ds that will encoura g e re cy cling , and containment standards for bulk storag e and product transfer
.

• Phase I I I

reg ulations covere d pesticide pa ckag e storag e, mana g ement of e xce ss p e sti c ide s a ndri ns a te , mi xing /lo a din g sp ill c on tr ol p ro c e du re s, and additional transportation require ments. Pe sti c idemixin g /lo a din g fa c ili tie s a rebu ilt to r e du c e thepo te nti a l f

or so il, g roundwater, and surfa ce w ater contamination. In g ener al, fa cilities that are de sig ne d andop e rate d w ithe nv ir on me ntal pr ote c tio n inmin d mu st c omp ly wi th the four ba sic laws pertinent to pesticide mix ing/loading operations. The four fundame ntal laws ar e:

• F IF RA
• ResourceConservation and Rec overy Act (RCRA)
• Comprehensive Envir onmental Response, Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCL A)
• Clean Water Ac t (CWA) Whil e ther e ar e state r eg ulations that specify how a pe sticide mix ing and loading fa c ili ty is t o b e bu ilt

a ndop e rate d, the reareno fe de ral r e g ulatio ns . C h ap t e r 4 8 7 F
. S
. p r o h i b i t s t h e h a n d l i n g , tr a n s p o rt a t i o n , s t o r a g e , d i s p l a y, distribution, or dispos al of pe sticides in such a manne r which w ill endang er human being s, the environment, f ood, fee d, or any

other produc ts. Con c e rn ing theapp lic a tio n o f p e sti c ide s, F IF RA a ndCha pte rs 38 8 and48 7 F .S. pr oh ibi t th e us e of

a ny re g ist e re d p e sti c idein a

ma nn e r i nc on sis te nt w ithits labeling . The labe l includes enfor cea ble lang uag e conc erning label rates, targ et sit e s, a nddis po sa l r e qu ir e me nts
. Th e F DA CS r e qu ir e sto ra g e of pe sti c ide s u se d b y

mos qu ito c on tr ol o pe ratio ns to meet ce rtain re quirements esta blished in rule 5E-13.0371( 4). Thesepesticides must be stored and maintained so they arenot acc essible to unauthorized persons. Se c ur e d s tor a g e c a n b e : f e nc e s w itha

min imu m si x fe e t of

he ig ht, do or

loc ks , va lveloc ks , e le c tr on ic se c urity sy ste ms, dis abli ng of

mob ile sto ra g e un its , blocking of ac cess, ing ress or e g ress, or any other re asonable method to preve nt or deter theft or unauthorized use. Building s used to store pesticide s should be of ri g id c on str

uc tio n s o u nauth orize d e ntry c a n n ot b e a c hie ve d. I f a po rt ableC hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 236

bu ild ing is u se d f

or sto ra g e of

pe sti c ide s, thebu ild ing mus t bese c ur e d inpla c e so it c a n n ot b e tow e d o r o the rw isere mov e d b y un auth orize d p e rs on s. 

### 13 . 6 OTHER REGULATI ONS AND I NITI ATIV ES 13.6.1 Clean Air Ac t Al tho ug h th e F e de ral Cle a n A ir Ac t ( CA A) ha s li ttl e e ff

e c t onthemos qu ito control industry , the potential for r eg ulating a pplication drift does e x ist. Each ind ivi du a l st a te , b a se d u po n it s State I mpl e me ntatio n Pl a n, c ou ld p ote nti a lly re g ulate me tho ds wh ic h r e le a se pe sti c ide s, e ith e r a s p artic ulate s o r a s o rg a nic emissions, int o the air.
13 .6 .2 Co m pr e he nsiv e Envi r onm e nt al R e spo nseCo m pe nsa ti on a nd Liab ility Act Numerous pe sticide ing redie nts and formulations ar e re g ulated as ha zardous substances unde r the Comprehe nsive Environmental Response Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA), c ommonlyknown as Superf und. Howeve r, pesticides app lie d a s p e r l abe l in str

uc tio ns aree xemp t.
13.6.3 Departm ent of Transp ortation Be fore a material is shipped domestically , it mustbe dete rmined if it meets one or more of the Depa

rtment of Transportation (DOT) hazard c lass definitions. Pesticides arefre quently

subject to DOT r eg ulations. I f a pe sticide is classified a s hazardous, it must be properly packa g ed, desc ribed, and certified on shipping paper s. DOT also re quires tra ining to be pr ovided to all HAZ MAT employ ees reg arding the safetransportation of hazardous materials, including e merg ency response . 13.6.4 Resourc e Conser vation and Rec overy A ct Mosquito control pesticide waste s can bereg ulated under the Fe dera l Resource Conservation and Rec overy Act (RCRA). Examples include: unused pesticides that arelisted or areconsidere d hazardous wa ste, ce rtain discar ded re sidue or rinsate f rom containe rs, nonempty pesticide c ontainers or

pesticide re sidue consisting of

contaminated soil, water, or othe r debris resulting f rom the cle anup of a spilled pesticide
. 13.6.5 Reduced Risk Pe sticides Initiative To reduc e human he alth and envir onmental risks, the EPA deve loped the Voluntary

Reduce d Risk P esticides Initiative to encoura g e the r eg istration of lower risk pesticide produc ts containing new a ctive ing redie nts. The long -termC hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 237

strateg y will develop criteria for

identification of suc h pesticides, streamline the reg istration proce ss, improve the availabilityof information to users, and re war d those who deve lop such reduc ed risk pesticide s. 13 .6 .6 P ublicLand s Chapter 388 F .S. addresse s arthropod c ontrol on Florida’ s publically -owne d lands by rec og nizi ng that some environmenta lly sensitive and biolog ically productive pu bli c la nd s may

be su bje c t to arthr op odc on tr ol m e a su re s. Suc h a c tiv iti e s mu st be appr oved by

the appr opriate a g ency

and performed by

the local a

rthropod control ag ency

using me thods and materia ls which areminimallynece ssary y et economically

fea sible to abate a

public health or nuisanc e proble m, while causing the least ha zard to natural r esourc es. I f the loca l arthropod c ontrol ag ency proposes a

public lands control plan to the a g ency and if it is not acce ptable, and they can not a g reeon a plan, the F CCMC can r ecommend a control plan. Chapter 388 F.S. outlines the steps that can be take n if an a g ree ment cannot be rea ched.


### 1 3 . 7 REC OMME NDAT I ONS F OR ST ORA GE AND HAND LI NG OF P ESTI CIDES At times it i s nece ssary

to store or transport pesticides in a diff ere nt container

than that inwh ic h it

wa s sh ipp e d. Th is d if

fe re nt c on ta ine r i s f

re qu e ntl y re fe rr e d to a s a “service c ontainer.” When using such a servicecontainer , it is recommended that thefo llo wi ng inf

ormatio n b e se c ur e ly

atta c he d to it: P esticide Conce ntrate 1. The name, addr ess, and tele phone number of the user ' s firm 2. Pr od uc t name 3. EPA Reg istration Number 4. Name a ndpe rc e nta g e of a c tiv e ing re die nts 5. Signal wor d from the r eg istered labe l Use-D ilution P reparation 1. The name, addr ess, and tele phone number of the user ' s firm 2. Product name pr ece ded by the word diluted 3. EPARe g ist

ratio n N umb e r p re c e de d b y thewo rd s “ de ri ve d f

ro m” 4. Name and perc entag e of a ctive ing redie nt as diluted 5. Signal wor d from the r eg istered labe l A re fer encecopy

of the EPA appr oved labe ling f or the produc t must be kept at the firm’s off ice. Also, the pe sticide in the servic e container c annot be sold or distributed for use by

any other pe rson.C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 238



### 13 . 8 CERTIF ICATI ON AN D TRAINING I n 1 99 2, theF lorida

De pa rtme nt o f H e a ltha ndRe ha bil itativ e Se rv ic e s, Pe st, Mo sq uit o andDo g F ly

Con tr ol p ro g ram w a s tr a ns fe rr e d to theF DA CS. T his pr og ram w a s r e name d th e B ur e au o f E nto mol og y a ndPe st C on tr ol. Certification of pesticide applicators in Florida is conduc ted by two state B ureaus wi t h i n FD AC S
. T h eyar e t h e B u re au o f P es t i ci d es an dt h e B u re au o f E n t o m o l o gy and Pest Control. Th ro ug h Ch apte r 3 88 F .S. , th e B ur e au o f E nto mol og y a ndPe st C on tr ol i s re sp on sib le fo r the re g ulatio n o f m os qu ito c on tr ol w or ke rs thr ou g h Pu bli c He a lth Pest Control certification. They administer ce rtification exams and enf orce app lic ablela ws a ndru le s. F DA CS e sta bli sh e s c ri te ri a

fo r the c e rtif

ic a tio n o f all private and public arthropod c ontrol applicators and prog ram dire ctors and require s appropriate re cord ke eping and re porting . No ce rtification is requir ed of private a pplicators contr olling arthropods on their own individual reside ntial or a g ri c ultur a l pr op e rty . Ch apte r 5 E- 13 of theF lorida

Ad min ist rativ e Cod e (F AC ) establishes the c riteria f

or ce rtification of a

pplicators. To comply

with FIFRA re quirements, two categ ories ar e included w ithin the Public Health Control L icense
. 1. P ubl ic Health : The Public Hea lth categ ory includes public applicators using or supervising the use of r estricted usepesticides in public hea lth prog rams for the manag ement and c ontrol of pests having medical, public he alth, or nuisance imp orta nc e . T o o btain this lic e ns e , p ra c tic a l kn ow le dg e of ve c tor dis e a se transmission as it relates to application prog rams is requir ed, as w ell as rec og nition, li fe c y cles, and habitats of re levant pests and know ledg e of environmenta l conditions that may aff ect public he alth arthropod c ontrol, and kn ow le dg e of

theimp orta nc e a nde mpl oyme nt o f n on -c he mic a l c on tr ol m e tho ds , such as sanitation, waste disposal, and drainag e. 2. Aer ial : The Ae rial categ ory includes public applicators who apply any pe sti c ideus e d f

or pu bli c he a ltharthr op odc on tr ol f ro m a n air c ra ft . Lic e ns ur e in thi s c a te g ory

is i ssu e d o nly

in c on jun c tio n w ithlic e ns ur e in the Pub lic He a lth Categ ory . To obtain the ae rial license , prac tical knowledg e must be demonstrated of the princ iples and pra ctices of aerial pest control and the safe application of pesticides by

aerial methodologie s. To obtain a lice nse, a pa ssing g radeof 70% is re quired. Individuals who score below 70% may

retake the test, a s often as de sired, in ac cordance w ith testing sc he du le s. The B ureau of Entomology and Pest Control sponsors training pr og rams for prepa ration to take the exams. This i ncludes training in the c ore a rea ( i.e ., pesticide handling and safe ty ) fr om the CountyCooperative E x tension ServiceC hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 239

o ff i ce s . T ra i n i n g i n p u b l i c h ea l t h p es tco n tro l i s o ff er ed b y FD AC S an dt h ro u gh theF MCADo ddSho rt

Cou rs e s. License s must be rene wed e very four y ear s. Six teen CEUs (Continuing Education Units) arerequire d within the four y ear s for re newa l of the license s. Reexamination is require d if the license is not renewe d within 90 day s of the e xpir a tio n d a te . F AC 5E -1 3 r e qu ir e s Pu bli c He a lthPe st C on tr ol a pp lic a tor s to keep a ccur ate pe sticides use re cords. The se re cords must be re tained for a period of threey ear s and made available to FDACS upon reque st. FAC 5E- 13 further

require s that all new mosquito control direc tors must already have, or obtain, Public Health Pest Control certification. W ithin si x months of be ing hir e d, a ll n e w m os qu ito c on tr ol d ir e c tor s mu st t ake a ndpa ss a dir e c tor s’ e xam, wh ic h is a

c omp re he ns ivee va luatio n o f the kn ow le dg e re qu ir e d to administer a mosquito control prog ram in F lorida, including budg et planning and pesticide c alibration. F un ds areapp ro priate d ann ua lly by theF lorida

L e g isl a tur e to s up po rt

thePub lic Hea lth Pest C ontrol Progr am, which is administere d by the FD ACS Bure au of Entomology

and Pest Control. There areno fee s collecte d in administration of this progr am. 

### 1 3 . 9 AER I AL REG ULA TI ONS Aerial mosquito control operations ar e re g ulated under the Code of F eder al Reg ulations (CFR) Title 14, Part 137, which g overns a g ricultural aircra ft operations withi n the United States. Airc raf t owned and ope rate d by

g overnme nt or g a nizatio ns , s uc h a s mo sq uit o c on tr ol d ist ri c ts, aree nti tle d, bu t no t r e qu ir e d, to be oper ated a s “public airc raf t.” “Public airc raf

t” ar e exempt from many , but not all, of the re quirements of Part 137. Mosquito control org anizations operating “civil” ( i.e., not “public”) airc raf t are require d to obtain an Ag ricultural Air cra ft Oper ator Certificate unde r Part 137, which entails presenting for inspec tion at least one “ certificated and airworthy airc raf t” and a ppropriate ly

rate d airc raf

t pilot who mus t pass a knowledg e and skill t est to demonstrate c ompetency in aerial ag ricultural ope rations. Ad dition a lly , th e pil ot i s r e qu ir e d to me e t c e rt a in p ri or e xpe ri e nc e re qu ir e me nts befor e conduc ting ope rations over a cong ested a

rea . Part 137 Subpart C outlines ge nera l operating r ules for a g ricultural aircra ft, many of wh ic h a reno t app lic ableto “ pu bli c ” a ir c ra ft . O f n ote , h ow e ve r, is that th is i s the only reg ulation which allows ag ricultural aircra ft “during the ac tual dispensing operation” to operate at altitudes “r equire d for the pr oper a ccomplishment of the ag ricultural aircra ft operation.” All aircr aft, c iv il and pu bli c , a reoth e rw ise require d to maintain the minimum safe altitudes outlined in P art 91 (“ Gene ralC hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 240

Oper ating and F light Rules”) of the re g ulation, which ar e sig nif ic an tlyhighe r than would be pra ctical f

or any sort of mosquito control aerial operations. I n sections 137.43 throug h 137.47 allowanc es ar e made for a g ricultural aircra ft wh ic h a reno t e qu ipp e d w ithra dio s, tr a ns po nd e rs , p os iti on lig hts , o r b a sic instruments to permit them to operate in some a rea s of controlled airspaceafte r prior coor dination with the appropriate authorities. Arg uably the most noteworthy

part of this re g ulation is S ection 137.51, which delineate s require ments for ope ration over “cong ested a

rea s” and doe s not

exempt “public” aircra ft from c ompliance. In addition to obtaining “prior written approva l” from an appropriate g overnme nt official ha ving jurisdiction over ea ch municipality

involved (usually

acc omplished by

way of an ope n-ende d letter of approva l), the org anization mustprovide prior notice of e ach ope ration to the public throug h newspa

pers, r adios, etc., and have e ach ope ration appr oved by the local F eder al Aviation Administration (FA A) F light Standar ds District Offic e (F SDO). To circ umvent the re dundancy of submitting a c omplete plan with all of the require d information for e ach and every operation, mostmosquito control org anizations opt t o publish a y early “cong ested a

rea plan” whic h meets all of the require ments outlined in the section and submit it t o the local F SDO for a pproval. On c e app ro ve d, thi s p la n s e rv e s a s a kin d o f “ c on tr a c t” be tw e e n th e mos qu ito c on tr ol o rg a nizatio n andtheF AA , d e fi nin g e xac tly ho w the or g a nizatio n w ill conduct its business and usually then only require s that a fa csimile notification be sent to the FSDO a dvising them of the intended tre atment ar ea, times, pilot(s), and a ir c ra ft be fo ree a c h n ig ht’ s f

lig ht a c tiv iti e s. It sh ou ld b e no te d th a t e a c h F SDO ’s de sig nate d r e pr e se ntativ e ha s c omp le te discretion in appr oving a

specific aerial operation over his or her jurisdiction’s cong ested a

rea s. Acc ording ly , althoug h some sections of Part 137 exempt “public” aircra ft from be ing c ertified a s airworthy , or pilots from being appropriately

licensed, or

the org anization from being inspected, suc h org anizations may

be prohibited fr om operating ove r cong ested a rea s if the FA A officia l with jurisdiction feels the oper ation cannot be conducte d with an appropriate deg reeof saf

ety . Additionally , the FA A g ives no prec ise definition of a “c ong ested a

rea .” Ope rators w ho areunsure of whether or not they

are op e ratin g ov e r a

c on g e ste d a

re a sh ou ld c on su lt the ir

loc a l F SDO to m ake thi s determination. Th e reis o ft e n s omec on fu sio n a s to wh a t in fo rm a tio n is re qu ir e d to be inc lud e d in a cong ested a

rea plan. Apart from the fe ature s briefly outlined in Part 137.51, i.e. “conside ration of obstruc tions to flight; the emer g ency landing capa

biliti es of the airc raf t to be used; and any

nece ssary

coordination with air traff ic control,” the reg ulation does not g ive spec ific deta ils as to the require d content. A more complete de scription can befound in the F AA Inspector’ s Handbook 8700.1C hapt er 13: H ow Fl ori da M os qui t o C ont rol i s R egu l at ed Page 241

Chapter 120, Eva luate a Part 137 Conge sted Are a Ope rations Plan, Section 2, Parag raph 3) D. Oper ators may reque st a copy

of this para g raph f

rom their F SDO for c larification. The same c hapter of the Handbook require s the FA A desig nated re pr e se ntativ e , o r “ Pr inc ipal O pe ratio ns I ns pe c tor ,” in a c c e pti ng theplan, to provide a written appr oval and to stamp, date and sig n eac h pag e of the plan. Of further note, some mosquito control org anizations, although ope rating reg ularly as “public” airc raf

t, opt to additionallyobtain a Part 137 Ag ricultural Aircr aft Ope rator Ce rtificate . This certificate a llows the operator, should the need ari se a ndwi th the app ro va l of F DA CS a ndin c omp lianc e wi th F lorida Statut e , to a c c e pt r e imb ur se me nt f

or a ssi sti ng oth e r o rg a nizatio ns wi th a e ri a l mo sq uit o c on tr ol a pp lic a tio ns . A c c e ptanc e of a ny kin d o f r e imb ur se me nt f

or the se se rv ic e s, to include fue l and pesticide, ne g ates the “ public” status of g overnme nt-operated a ir c ra ft a ndre qu ir e s th e op e rator to h olda Part 13 7 c e rtif

ic a te , e xce pt i n circ umstances whe re “ the g overnme nt on whose beha lf the oper ation is conducted c e rtif ie s to theAd min ist

rator of theF AAthat th e op e ratio n is ne c e ssa ry to respond to a sig nificant and imminent threat to life or prope rty (including natura l resour ces) and that no service by a private oper ator is re asonably available to meet the threat.” This arr ang ement is a sig nificant “ g ray are a” and should be navig ated car efully , with prior consultation and a pproval of a

ppropriate FAArepr esentatives ha vin g jurisd ic tio n o ve r b othor g a nizatio ns ’ a re a s, to avo id i nc ur

ri ng c on sid e ra

ble fines and disc iplinary

action.
13.9.1 Aircr aft Registration, S ecurity, and S torage The F DACS require s that aircr aft used f or mosquito control in Florida be r e g i s t e r e da n n u a l l y

w i t h t h e D e p art m e n to n o r b e f o r e J u n e 3 0 o f

e a c h y e ar . In addition, these airc raf

t shall be secur ed whe n not in use, either by storag e in a locked building , mechanically disabled fr om fly ing, loc ked in place , or any other rea sonable method that would pre vent or de ter thef t or unauthorized use. Any purcha se, sale, r ental, lea sing, or transfe r of owne rship of a mosquito control airc raf t require d to be re g istered with the De partment must be re ported to the Depa rtment within 24 hours of the transaction.A ppe ndi x I : A ck now l ed gmen t s and A w ard s Page 242 

## App endix I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A ND A WARD S

Over the past dec ade, F lorida mosquito control prog rams and pr ofessionals have be e n h on or e d f

or the ir c omm itm e nt t o s a ltm ars h s ou rc e re du c tio n p ro g rams. As a result of these eff

orts to benef

it wetland re source s, sever al individuals and prog rams haverec eived e nvironmental aw ards of high distinction. 

### U .S. Fi sh an d W i l dli fe S ervi ce Co ns ervati on Service A w ard to Ja ck S alm ela Under the direc tion of L eon Jack Salmela, B reva rd County undertook the state ’s larg e st s ou rc e re du c tio n p ro g ram. Ja c k’ s c are , p e rs e ve ranc e , andsu c c e ss i n maintaining the se marshe s for both mosquito control and wildlife re source s was highlig hted in 1986, when he rec eived the U .S. Department of I nterior, F ish and Wil dlife Service ’s Conservation Service Aw ard. As described by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service : Thi s a war d is the hig he st h on or

be sto we d b

y the Se c re tar

y to private citizens and groups for direct contributions to t he mission and goals of the Department. It was presente d to Mr. Salmela for his endless contributions to w ildlif e conse rvation through effective mo sq uito c on tro l te c hn iqu e s a nd his pe rso na l de dic ati on to effective manageme nt of wi ldlife resources
. 

### Flori da D epartm ent of

En vir on m ental Reg ulati on Secretary’s En vir on m ental Aw ard to th e Saint L ucie Co un ty M osq uito C on trol D i stri ct I n Jan ua ry 19 90 fo r the ir

inn ov a tiv e imp ou nd me nt m a na g e me nt p ro g ram, the St. Lucie County

Mosquito C ontrol District (Fr ank Evans, Direc tor, and James David, Assistant Direc tor) re ceive d the Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Reg ulation Secre tary ’s Environmental Aw ard. This a war d was for Wetland enhanc ement and manag ement, which ha s signific antly contributed to protec tion, conservation, or re storation of the air, wate r, or natural re source s of the State.


### Flori da M osq uito C on trol A ssociati on ’s Provost A w ard Th e F lorida

Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol A sso c iatio n’ s ( F MCA ) P ro vo st a wa rdis g ive n to FMCA member s who have devoted their car eer s to mosquit o control, while at the same time showing profound c oncern for the e nvironment. For four r ecipients ofA ppe ndi x I : A ck now l ed gmen t s and A w ard s Page 243

thi s a wa rd , th e ir ind ivi du a l c omm itm e nt t o e nv ir on me ntally so un d s a ltm ars h manag ement wa s a larg e fa ctor in their r ece iving this prestig ious honor. I n 1987, Jac k Sa lme la

(D ir e c tor of B re va rdMo sq uit o Co ntr ol D ist ri c t) wa s a wa

rd e d th is ho no r l arg e ly

fo r h is w or

k inthewe tland s mana g e me nt andc on se rv a tio n e ff orts i n association with the U.S. Fish and Wil dlife Serviceon the Merritt I sland National Wil dlife Refug e. I n 1994, the Provost awar d was pre sented to E. John Beidler, D irec tor of the I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict, who wa s instrumental in init iating and overse eing impoundment resea rch unde rtake n in the 1980s to identify the imp ou nd me nt m a na g e me nt t e c hn iqu e s w hic h a remos t e nv ir on me ntally compatible. This re sear ch led to the g ener al ac ceptance and implementation of Rotational I mpoundment Manag ement (RIM), which is the impoundment manag ement tec hnique most commonlyused along the Indian River L ag oon. John a lso ha s b e e n a

me mbe r o f the F lorida

Coo rd inatin g Cou nc il o n M os qu ito Control since 1986. Dr. JorgeRey , a we tlands scientist at the University of F lorida, Institut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es, F lorida Medical Entomology L aboratory

(F MEL ), re c e ive d th e Pr ov os t A wa rdin 2 00 1. Dr . Re y

ha s w or ke d o n s a ltm ars h manag ement issues since hearrived at F MEL in 1978. I n the ea

rly 1980s, he wa s one of the scientists who approa ched the I ndian River Mosquito Control Dist rict (IRMCD) sugg esting a coope rative pr oject with the Ha rbor B ranc h Oce anog raphic I nstitut ion and I RMCD to i nvestig ate the e colog ical ef fec ts of impoundment manag ement. This fe dera lly funded pr oject lasted f

or eig ht y ear s and wa s the foundation on which RIM was base d. J org e has be en a me mber of the Subcommitt ee on Manag ed Mar shes since it wa s cre ated in 1986. I n 2007, Dr. Ge org e O’ Mear a re ceive d the Provost Awar d. A Full Profe ssor at the FMEL , Dr. O’ Mear a is a mosquito biology expert and a tire less visionary whose g oal was to provide mosquito control resea rch- based information to allow for moreeff

icient, ef fec tive, and envir onmentally proper manag ement. His work ha s c on tribu te d to re du c e d p e sti c ideus a g e , mi nim izin g ha bit a t a lte ratio ns wh ile reduc ing mosquito populations, evaluating wastew ater and stormwate r treatment impacts on mosquito populations , and ensuring that mosquit o control impacts ar e t ak en i n t o co n s i d er at i o n as Fl o ri d a c o n t i n u es t o p ro v i d e s tra t egi es t o m an age wate r r e so ur c e s. 

### N ati on al Ass oci ati on of C ou nties Ach i evem ent A w ard St. Lucie County

Mosquito C ontrol rec eived the 1991 N ational Association of Counties Achieveme nt Awar d for the r estoration of tidal flushing to their coa stal impoundments.A ppe ndi x I I : St ormw at er B es t M anage men t Prac t i ce s Page 244 

## App endix II BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTIC ES FOR MO SQUITO CONT ROL IN STORMWATER MAN AGEMENT FACILI TIES VOLUSI A COUN TY MOSQUITO CONTROL

The surf acestorag e of stormwater re quired by state and loc al re g ulations has c re a te d mo sq uit o la

rv a l ha bit a ts. Ou r g oa l is to e lim inate larv a l mo sq uit o pr od uc tio n f

ro m st ormw a te r m a na g e me nt f a c ili tie s. Th is e ff

ort r e qu ir e s a

ba sic understanding of mosquito life cy cles and habitats. The immature stag es of mosquitoes (eg g s, four instars of larva e, and pupa e) use permanently or int e rm itt e ntl y

we t ha bit a ts. Th e mos t pe sti fe ro us mos qu ito e s lay e g g s o n d a mp g round that periodically

floods. These e g g s may

survive for

y ear s betwee n flooding s. Primary

disease ve ctoring mosquitoes lay eg g s on the wate r' s surfac e. Some mosquit oes can develop to adults in as fe w as six day s. Top minnows are themos t e ff

e c tiv e pr e dator

of imm a tur e mos qu ito e s inpe rm a ne nt o r s e mipermanent wate r bodies that ar e fr ee of veg etation. The use of this information can r esult in proper de sign, c onstruction, and maintenance of stormwater manag ement fa cilities to prevent mosquito production. Th re e e le me nts areimp orta nt t o a ssu rethat a sto rm wate r m a na g e me nt f a c ili ty do e s n ot p ro du c e mos qu ito e s: 1 ) Design of

thepr op e r f

a c ili ty fo r the sit e – b a se d o n s oil s a ndoth e r s ite c on str a int s 2) Proper c ons tr uc ti on and ce rtification by the desig ner 3) Guar antee d m aintenance of the sy stem Th e se thr e e e le me nts , w he n d on e tog e the r, c a n a c hie ve theg oa l of no mos qu ito pr od uc tio n f

ro m st ormw a te r f

a c ili tie s. 

### D es i gn The thre e basic types of de signs a re w et, dry , and intermittent sy stems. Desig ns should be based on site c hara cteristics and sound eng ineering principles and include conside ration of soils, seasona l high water table , and pre -deve lopment draina g e cha

rac teristics. The Soil Survey of Volusia County

provides g ood but le ss d e ta ile d in fo rm a tio n th a t sh ou ld b e fi e ld v a lid a te d. Slo pe s sh ou ld allo w e a se of maintenance and for small childre n to ext ricate themselves. MaintenanceplansA ppe ndi x I I : St ormw at er B es t M anage men t Prac t i ce s Page 245

should be ca

ref ully revie wed to pre vent additional problems. The soil technician a t th e Vo lus ia

Cou nty Ag ri c ultur e Ce nte r i s a vaila blefo r f re e c on su ltatio n o n s oil a ndwate r t able s. Wet sy ste m r e te nti on or

de te nti on fa c ili tie s a

reus ua lly us e d ina hig h w a te r t able situatio n. Th e pe rm a ne nt w a te r t ablec a n maint a in t op min no ws , p ro vid e d th e reis eig hteen inche s of wate r during the driest periods. The bottom should be gr aded to avo id i so late d p oc ke ts o f s ta nd ing wate r. A m a int e nanc e e a se me nt o f at le a st fiftee n fee t should surround the fa cility above the high w ater

line. Wetland plantings a

re discour ag ed as the y

causemosquito or maintenance problems. Dry sy stems (rete ntion area s or swale s) ar e best used in low water table , perme able soils. These a rea s should be desig ned to be dry within three day s of a rainfall event base d on a twenty -five y ear fre quency

storm of twenty -four

hour duration. A g ood rule of thumb is to place the bottom one foot above the sea sonal high w ater

table. Where this mi nimum freeboa rd cannot be ac hieved by

raising the re tention are a, a w et sy stem should be used. We do notrec ommend the use of un de rdrains to c on tr ol w a te r e le vatio ns be c aus e of the ir e xpe ns e , s us c e pti bil ity

to failure , and fr equenc y

of maintenance. A s an alternative to surfa ce stora g e, we have r eg ularly

approve d underg round exfiltration sy stems in low water ta ble soils. The pipe should be pla ced at least one foot a bove the se asonal hig h water table. The inlet sumps may

producea fe w mosquitoes, but the maintenancevalue ou tw e ig hs thi s e a sil y

tr e a te d p ro ble m. T he se sy ste ms c a n b e ma int a ine d r e g ula rl y and ea silyby

jetting the pipe with a Vac -ty pe truc k unit. Th e le a st d e sir ablesy ste m is a n in te rm itt e ntl y we t/dry sy ste m. It is us e d at a

sit e wher e over

riding desig n criteria existsuch as tre e pre servation in a high water table soil. These unde sirable sy stems can be signific antly improved by

utiliz ing min no w r e se rv oir s, c on str uc te d o f F lorida

De pa rtme nt o f T rans po rt a tio n ty pe " C" catc h basins. The tops of the c atch ba sins are installed at gr ound level with a min imu m de pthof

tw o f e e t w itha so lidbo tto m a ndg rate d to p. Th e c a tc h b a sin become s a protec ted re fug e for minnows when the re tention fac ilityis dry . Eac h individual depression within the rete ntion area will require onerese rvoir. Maintenanc e of the se re servoirs c an be doneby hand or w ith a jet/pump sy stem. A small permane nt water pond in one part of the fa cility could ac t in a simil ar fashion. Retrof

itting exist ing f

acilities that function as intermittent wet/dry sy stems, contrary

to the orig inal desig n, would benef it from this revised desig n. 

### C onst ruc ti on I nlets and outlets should be construc ted with erosion prote ction device s. Con str uc tio n s ho uldbe do ne wi th h y dr auli c e xca vator s o r s imi lar e qu ipm e nt t o avoid depr essions. A profe ssional eng ineer should certify

that the fa cilities have be e n c on str

uc te d a c c or din g to the pr op os e d p la ns .A ppe ndi x I I : St ormw at er B es t M anage men t Prac t i ce s Page 246



### M aintenan ce An ag ree ment in the stormwater manag ement permit shoul d specific ally identify the party responsible for

maintenanc e. A maintenance sc hedule – and a proc edure to insure that maintenanc e is ca rried out – a lso are important. Mandated maintenanc e is an important ele ment in local stormwater reg ulations. Si de slopes should be kept fr ee of

wee ds. Grass should be pr operly manag ed to pre vent e ro sio n. Wee d mana g e me nt ( c he mic a l a nd /or ph y sic a l r e mov a l) sh ou ld b e us e d in permanent wate r fa cilities. Requests to stock top mi nnows in wet fa cilities can be made to Volusia County

Mosquito C ontrol. Tire tra cks in roadside swales and other a ctivities that cause r uts and depre ssions in dry fac iliti es should be avoide d. Th is g uid a nc e a llo ws pr of e ssi on a ls i nv olv e d insto rm wate r m a na g e me nt t o preve nt a problem with some simple solutions. I t is possi ble to solve exist ing pr ob le ms u sin g thesa me inf ormatio n. It is ou r h op e that th is d oc ume nt w ill convince people to bec ome a pa rt of the solution – not part of the pr oblem. Proper su rf a c e sto ra g e of

sto rm wate r t o e lim inate mos qu ito pr od uc tio n is on e of themos t inexpensive and environmenta lly sensitive approa ches to mosquito control available today
.A ppe ndi x I I I : H i s t ory of R es i s t anc e Page 247 

## APPENDIX III HISTORY OF RES ISTA NCE
Chronology of

Insecticide Re sistance in Flor ida Mosqu itoes 1 19 43 • Da de Cou nty

us e s D DT to c on tr ol m os qu ito e s. 19 45 • Pin e lla s Co un ty us e s D DT in the rm a l a e ro so ls t o c on tr ol Aede s tae nio rh y nc hu s. 1949 • Florida

mosquito control depends almost exclusivelyon DDT.
• Br evar d Countyreports DDT no long er pr ovides ade quate c ontrol of Ae. taeniorhync hus
. 1950 • L aboratory

tests confirm DDTresistanc e in Ae . ta e nio rh y nc hu s. 1955 • DDT, B HC, and dieldrin no long er c ontrol saltmarsh Ae de s. • Ma lathi on is s ho wne ff e c tiv e fo r c on tr oll ing re sis ta nt Ae de s. 1957 • Malathion use is widespre ad in the state.
• B a se lin e su sc e pti bil ity

fi e ld d a ta wi th m a lathi on aree sta

bli sh e d in In d i a n R i v e r

C o u n t y. • Florida State Boa

rd of He alth issues policy that OPs be used only

as a du lti c ide s. 1958 • No ar eas of

state can be termed non-re sistant to DDT.
• Shiloh s train of Ae . ta e nio rh y nc hu s is established. 1960 • Ba seline susce ptibili ty data f or malathion and Ae . a e gy ptiare obtained. 1961 • Ae . a e gy

ptiis s ho wnre sis ta nt t o D DT in K e y Wes t. 19 63 • Pr og ram is e sta bli sh e d to mon ito r i ns e c tic idere sis ta nc e in mos qu ito e s. • Thereis no confirmed r esistance to any OP in the state.
• F e nth iona ndna le d a

ree ff e c tiv e a g a ins t Ae . ta e nio rh y nc hu s. 1965 • L ee County

reports poor results with aerially applied malathion for Ae. taeniorhync hus c on tr ol.
• Advanc ed deg reeof re sistance to malathion (RR 6-20 and 12- 74 for 50 90 L C and L C respe ctively ) is detec ted in offshoreislands populations of Ae. taeniorhync hus in Sarasota and L ee Counties [R R= r e s is tan c e r a ti o ( RR ) ].
• Cul ex nig rip alp us and Cx. salinarius aresusceptible to malathion.A ppe ndi x I I I : H i s t ory of R es i s t anc e Page 248 19 66 • Ma lathi on re sis ta nc e is r e c on fi rm e d inla bo ratory te sts
. • First conf

irmed re port of OP re sistance in the state is published.
• U.S. Department of Ag riculture ( USDA) attempts to document the e xten t of ma lathi on re sis ta nc e . A ll f ie ld s tr a ins te ste d a

rere sis ta nt t o 50 90 malathion (RR 3-30 and 5-170 f or L C and L C respe ctively ).
• I ONA strain of Ae. taeniorhync hus is established and shows resistanc e to malathion. 1967 • Malathion resistanc e in Ae . ta e nio rh y nc hu s occur s throug hout the state.
• Thereareno other c onfirmed r eports of O P resistance
. • F ie ld d a ta

sh ow s it take s mo rema lathi on to c on tr ol Ae. tae nio rh y nc hu s than it did in 1959.
• M al at h i o n re s i s t an ce i s d ev el o p i n g.

50 1968 • A re version in malathion re sistance ( 9 to 3 and 52 to 6 for L C and

90 L C respe ctively ) occ urs in the Sanibel I sland population of Ae. taeniorhynchus. It is c on ne c te d to a de c re a se in m a lathi on us a g e in L e e C o u n t y. 1969 • Resear cher s report a sig nificant diff ere nce be tween g lass and po ly pr op y le ne be ake rs wh e n te sti ng Ab a te a ndDu rs ban . T he y us e ® ® on ly g la ss b e ake rs . • Ba selines ar e esta

blished for Abate , fenthion, and D ursban
. ® ® 19 71 • USD A w or

ke rs c on fi rm

that Ae. taeniorhync hus fr om A lle nh ur st 50 90 r e m a i n h i g h l y

r e s i s t a n tt o m a l a t h i o n ( R R 2 8 a n d4 6 f o r LC a n dLC respe ctively ). 19 72 • Mo nit oring c on tin ue s a ndsh ow s li ttl e va ri a tio n inre sis ta nc e le ve ls. 1974 • Z oecon Corpor ation scientists coined the term “biorational

ins e c tic ide ” to d e sc ri be theapp ro a c h o f d e ve lop ing e nv ir on me ntally sa feins e c tic ide s b a se d o n u nd e rs ta nd ing ins e c t ph y sio log y (D je ra ssi et al . 1974). 1975 • First commer cial use of methoprene(Altosid I GR). 1976 • Culex nigripalpus shows signs in the labor atory of bec oming r esistant to malathion.A ppe ndi x I I I : H i s t ory of R es i s t anc e Page 249 1979 • Cottondale strain of Cx. quinquefasciatus is established.
• Tampa strain of Cx . q uin qu e fas c iat us is s ho wnto b e re sis ta nt t o chlorpy rifos (RR3 and 6), na led (RR 3 and 8), f enthion (RR 4 and 1), 50 m a l a t h i o n ( R R 8 a n d1 7 ) , a n dt e m e p h o s ( R R 6 a n d3 9 ) a l l f o r LC 90 a n dL C r e s p e c t i v e l y. • Th e fi rs t pu bli sh e d r e po rt of re sis ta nc e in this sp e c ie s inthestate app e ars . 19 82 • Te me ph os is u se d inlarv a l c on tr ol p ro g rams, a de viatio n f

ro m st a te po lic y . A s a

re su lt a pr og ram is e sta

bli sh e d to mon ito r r e sis ta nc e to this insecticide. 1989 • Culex nigripalpus continues to be monitored f or re sistance.
• Malathion is rec ommended as the treatment of choice
. 1998 • Report of methopre ne re sistance in Ae de s ta e nio rh y nc hu s on 2 barrier isl a nd s, L e e Cou nty , F L

(D a me et al. 1998). 2000 • Report of re storation of susce ptibili ty to methoprene afte r a 4- y ear cessation of the use of me thoprene (Hornby 2000). 2002 • No indication of methopre ne re sistance in populations of Aede s

taeniorhynchus from the F lorida Ke y s in an are a whe re me thoprene formulations had be en in use c ontinuouslyfor 20 y ear s (Floor e e t al
. 2002).


### REFERENCES Br eaud, T .P. 1993. I nsecticide resistanc e in Florida mosquitoes. Journal of the 1 Florida Mosquito C ontrol Association 66: 14-21. Djera ssi, C., C . Shih-Coleman and J .Diekman. 1974. Insect c ontrol of the future : Oper ational and policy

aspec ts. Scienc e 186: 596-607. Dame, D .A., G.J. W ichterman and J.A Hornby . 1998. Mosquito ( Aede s taeniorhynchus ) re sistance to methopre ne in an isolated ha bitat. Journal of the American M

osquito Cont rol Association 14: 200-203. Hornby , J .A. 2000. Re-e x amination of Ae. taeniorhync hus methoprene susceptibilityin L ee County , Florida
. In : American Mosquito C ontrol Association M e e t i n g 2 0 0 0 M ar c h 1 1

- 1 6 , A t l a n t i c C i t y , N J. Floore , T. G., J.P . Smit h, K.R. Shaffe r and E.T . Schreibe r. 2002. L aboratory bioassay studies to determine methopre ne susce ptibili ty in a natura l population of Ochlerotatus taeniorhync hus from the F lorida Ke y s. Journal of the Americ an Mosquito Control Association 18: 111-113.A ppe ndi x I V : A cr onym Li s t Page 250 

## App endix IV Acrony m List

A C O E
. ....................................... Army Corps of Eng ineer s A E S
. ............................... Ag ricultural Environme ntal Service s A F P M B
. .......................... Armed F orce s Pest Manag ement B oard A I
. ................................................. Active ing redie nt A R S
. ..................................... Ag riculture Re sear ch Servic e A T V
. .............................................. Al l te rr a in v e hic le B M P
. ........................................ Be st manag ement pra ctice B t i
. .................................... Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is Bs
................................................ Bacillus sphaericus C A A
. .................................................. Clean Air Ac t C E U
......................................... Con tin uin g e du c a tio n u nit C H D
. ....................................... CountyHea lth Department C F R
. ...................................... Code of F eder al Reg ulations C M A V E
. ........ C en t erfo r M ed i ca l , Agr i cu l t u ra l , an dVe t er i n ar y E n t o m o l o gy C W A
. .............................................. Clean Water Ac t D o D
. .......................................... De pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e D O T
. ..................................... Depa rtment of Transportation D D T
. .................................. dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroe thane D E E T
. .................................... N,N-die thy l-meta-toluamide E C C
. ................................ Education Coordination C ommitt ee E E E
. ....................................... Ea sterne qu inee nc e ph a lit is E D I S
. ................................ Electronic Data Information Sy stem E P A
. ...................... United States Environmental Protec tion Age ncy E P I
. .................... Un ive rs ity of F lorida ’s Em e rg ing Pa tho g e ns I ns titute E R P
. ................................... En vir on me ntal Re so ur c e Pe rm it E S A
. ......................................... Endang ere d Species Ac t F A A
. .................................. Fe dera l Aviation Administ ration F A C
. ...................................... Florida Administrative Code F A M U
. ..................... F lorida Ag ri c ultur a l a ndMe c hanic a l U niv e rs ity F C C M C
. ................ F lorida Coo rd inatin g Cou nc il o n M os qu ito Con tr ol F D A C S
. ............ Florida Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s F D E P
. ..................... Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection F D E R
. .................... Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Reg ulation F D H R S
. ............ F lorida De pa rtme nt o f H e a ltha ndRe ha bil itativ e Se rv ic e s F D N R
. ........................... Florida Depa rtment of Natural Resourc es F D O H
. .................................... F lorida De pa rtme nt o f H e a lth F G FW F C
. .................. Florida Game and Fr esh Water F ish Comm ission F IF R A
. .................. Fe dera l I nsecticide , Fung icide and Rode nticide Act F I T
. ..................................... Fl o ri d a Ins t i t u t e o f T ec h n o l o gy F M C A
. ............................ Florida Mosquito C ontrol AssociationA ppe ndi x I V : A cr onym Li s t Page 251

F M E L
. ........................... Florida Medica l Entomology

L aboratory F
. S
. . ................................................. Florida Statutes F S B H
. .................................... F lorida State B oa

rdof He a lth F S D O
. ................................... Flig ht Standards District Off ice G I S
. ..................................... Geog raphic information sy stem G P S
. ....................................... Global Positi oning Sy stem G U P
............................................ Gene ral use pe sticides H B O I
. ........................... Har bor B ranc h Oce anog raphic I nstitut ion IE I
. ................................. I diopathic environme ntal intoleranc e IF A S
. .......................... I nstitut e of F ood and Ag ricultural Scienc es I G R
. .......................................... I nsect Gr owth Reg ulator I P M
. ...................................... I nteg rate d Pest Manag ement I R L
. ............................................. I ndian River L ag oon I T U
. ........................................... I nte rn a tio na l to xic u nit J A M S A R L
. ........... J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Arthropod Rese arc h L aboratory kdr
. ............................................ knockdown r esistance L S M
. ....................................... L arva l source manag ement M C D
. ....................................... Mosquito C ontrol District M C W A
. ................................. Mo sq uit o Co ntr ol i n Wa r A re a s M M F
. .......................................... Mo no mol e c ula r f ilm s M S D S
. ..................................... Materia l Safety Data Shee t N A S A
. ...................... National Ae ronautics and Space A dminist ration N G V D
. ............................... National Ge odetic Ve rtical Datum N E C E
. ........................... Navy Entomology

Center f or Excellence N J LT
. ........................................... New Jersey light tra p O M W M
. ................................ Open Ma rsh Water Mana g ement O P
. ................................................ Or g a no ph os ph a te P E S P
. ...................... Pesticide Environmental Stewa rdship Prog ram PHE REC
. . J ohn A. Mulrennan, Sr. Publi c He alth Resear ch and E ducation Center P R C
. ........................................ Pe sti c ideRe vie w C ou nc il R C R A
. .......................... ResourceConservation and Rec overy Act R IM
. .............................. Rotational I mpoundment Manag ement S E S
. ...................................... Scientific Evaluation Section S LE
. ............................................ St. L ou is e nc e ph a lit is S IN V
. ................................................. Sindbis virus S O M M
. .............................. Subcommitt ee on Manag ed Mar shes T M O F
. ............................. Try psin modulating oostatic hormone U F
. ............................................. University of F lorida U LV
. .............................................. Ul tr a L ow Vo lum e U S D A
. ........................... United States Depa rtment of Ag riculture U S F
. ....................................... University of South Florida U S FW S
. .......................... Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service W N E
. .......................................... Wes t N ile e nc e ph a lit is W P A
. ..................................... Work Projects Administration Y F
. ................................................... Yellow fe verI nde x Page 252 

## I n d ex 2 , 4

- D
. .......................................................... 5 9 A b a t e . .............................................. 61, 161, 172, 237 a c e t y l c h o l i n e . ................................................. 74, 97 a c e t y l c h o l i n e s t e r a s e ....................................... 153, 180-182 A C O E
. ....................................................... 44, 47 active ing redie nt (AI ).
. . . . . . . . . 68, 78, 80, 98, 100, 105, 180, 181, 188, 198, 237 a c u t e . ................. 70, 88, 98-103, 146, 148, 152, 156, 158, 172, 174, 176 a d u l t i c i d e . .............. 68, 87, 95, 97, 100, 104, 109, 115, 119, 121, 122, 154 156, 159, 167, 183, 205, 208, 218, 231 ad u l t i ci d i n g. . . . . 24, 25, 31, 50, 66, 68, 78, 86, 93-95, 97-101, 103- 106, 108-115 117-120, 136, 145, 156, 157, 159-162, 167, 178, 186, 219 Ae de s a e gy

pti
. . . 22, 31, 33, 35, 39, 90, 95, 125, 134, 198, 199, 214, 215, 217, 247 Aede s albopictus
. ...... 31, 35, 39, 60, 61, 95, 125, 130, 134, 194, 210, 215, 217 Aede s sollicitans
. ...................................... 39, 40, 54, 66, 91 Aede s taeniorhynchus
. ..... 39, 41, 66, 87, 91, 128, 135, 151, 159, 162, 169, 178 179, 190, 247-249 Aede s vexans . ............................................. 40, 54, 128 a e r i a l a d u l t i c i d i n g .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 110-115, 136, 156 A e r i a l T r a i n i n g S u b c o m m i t t e e . ...................................... 226 A E S
. ............................................. 69, 78, 97, 120, 124 A g n i q u e . .................................................... 77, 172 Ag ricultural Environme ntal Service s (AES).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 A l t o s a n d
. ........................................................ 7 7 A l t o s i d
. ................................................. 77, 164, 248 An op he le s. . . . . . 31, 33, 39, 48, 50, 66, 90, 95, 125, 135, 168, 171, 173, 181, 184 189-191, 217 Anopheles albimanus
. ............................................. 181 An op he le s a ra bie ns is
. ............................. 168, 184, 185, 190, 191 Anopheles gambiae
. ....................... 168, 171, 181,184, 189-191, 217 Anopheles quadrimac ulatus
. ...................................... 66, 95 ap p l i c a t i o n r a t e . ................................................... 6 6 A p p l i c a t o r

T r a i n i n g M a n u a l
. ......................................... 2 0 A r m y C o rp s o f E n g i n e e r s ( A C O E )
. ................................ 44, 47 arr o w h e a d
. ....................................................... 5 7 A s i a n t i g e r

m o s q u i t o . ............................... 31, 35, 125, 194, 214 a t tr a c t a n t s . .................................. 193, 195, 199, 200, 207, 219 au t o c i d a l c o n tr o l
. ................................................. 128 au t o g e n y . ....................................................... 128 Avice nnia germinans
. ........................................... 41, 83 Bacillus sphaericus (

Bs )
. .... . 70, 72-74, 89, 90, 92, 124, 127,129, 130, 149, 150 163, 172, 173, 183, 205 Ba c ill us thu rin gie ns is i sra e le ns is ( Bt i )
. .... 59, 70, 72-74, 82-84, 88, 89, 124, 127

129, 130, 149, 150, 159, 161, 167, 183, 186, 188, 205, 215 b arr i e r tr e a t m e n t s . ......................... 50, 101, 102, 105, 111, 207, 218I nde x Page 253

best manag ement pra ctices ( BMP).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 84, 94, 177, 244 b i o c o n tr o l
. .................... 66, 68, 123-126, 129, 130, 164, 193, 196, 197 bio log ic a l c on tr ol.
. . . . . 34, 59, 67, 90, 92, 123, 124, 127, 130, 148, 156, 196, 203 204, 214 b i o p e s t i c i d e . ............................................... 71, 73, 74 b i o r a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . .............................................. 159 Brachiola algerae
. ............................................... 125 B ur e au o f E nto mol og y

a ndPe st C on tr ol.
. . . 11, 14, 61, 69, 87, 124, 222, 224-226 238, 239 c ar b a m a t e s . ..................................... 149, 178, 179, 181-183 c ar b ary l
. ........................................................ 179 Center f or Medical, Ag ricultural, and Veterinary Entomology

(CMAVE).
. . 11, 13 15, 24, 126, 196, 197, 200, 218, 222 229 Ce ntr op om us un de c im ali s . .......................................... 4 5 C E R C LA
. .................................................. 235, 236 certification.
. . 50, 93, 116, 121, 154, 202, 214, 225-228, 233, 234, 238, 239, 244 Chapter 388.
. . . 2, 19, 26, 42, 68, 70, 146, 154, 161, 204, 231, 232, 234, 237, 238 c he mic a l c on tr ol.
. . . . . 23, 57, 59, 60, 146, 148, 149, 155, 177, 188, 194, 197, 202 203, 238 c h e m i c a l tr e s p a s s . ................................................ 154 c h l o rp yr i f o s . ....................................... 93, 97, 99, 178, 249 c h o l i n e s t e r a s e . ..................................... 74, 97, 155, 168-170 c h r o n i c . ................................ 135, 136, 146, 154, 155, 172, 173 c h ry s a n t h e m u m s . .................................................. 9 9 C l e a n A i r A c t( C A A )
. ............................................. 236 C l e a n W a t e r

A c t( C W A )
. .......................................... 235 C o d e o f F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s . ....................................... 239 C o q u i l l e t t i d i a . ................... 4, 20, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39, 50, 54, 57, 59, 133 Coquill ettidia perturbans
. .................................. 54, 57, 58, 66 C u l e x . ........ 31, 33, 39, 40, 50, 51, 53-55, 66, 72-74, 77, 90, 96, 125, 129, 130 132-134, 144, 164, 178, 183, 190, 191, 208, 212, 247-249 Culex coronator
. ................................................. 208 Culex nigripalpus
. ........ 53-55, 66, 96, 132, 133, 140, 144, 164, 212, 213, 218 219, 247-249 Culex pipiens
. ......................................... 72, 90, 183, 191 Culex quinquefasciatus
. ........ 33, 53, 55, 73, 74, 127, 129, 130, 132, 190, 249 Culex restuans
. ................................................... 5 3 Culex salinarius
. .............................................. 53, 247 C u l i c o i d e s . .................................................. 41, 160 C u l i s e t a . .................................... 33, 39, 58, 66, 73, 133, 216 Culiseta incidens
. ................................................. 7 3 Cul ise ta m e lan ur

a . ..................................... 58, 66, 133, 216 c u l v e rt s . .................................................. 45-47, 221 D D T
. ...... 23, 24, 68, 75, 145, 148, 165, 173, 174, 177-179, 181, 183, 192, 247 d e n g u e . .................... 22, 29, 35, 61, 131, 134, 137, 195, 211, 214, 215 Depa rtment of De fense (DoD)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196, 197, 200, 202, 211I nde x Page 254

D i b r o m . ................................................ 111, 163, 208 d i f l u b e n z u r o n . ................................................ 68, 149 D i m i l i n . ........................................................ 149 Di sti c hil is s

pic ata . ................................................ 8 3 d i t c h i n g . ............... 21, 23, 38, 41-44, 47, 64, 68, 151, 160, 161, 196, 208 D o d dS h o rtC o u r s e s . ............................... 25, 110, 225-228, 239 d o g h e art w o r m . ........................................... 29, 135, 213 d r a i n a g e . ...................... 22, 39, 40, 43, 48, 55, 56, 160, 209, 238, 244 d r e d g e . ................................................. 21, 23, 42, 44 d r o p l e t
. .................. 25, 81-84, 88, 94, 104, 107-114, 118- 121, 207, 219 d u p l e x . .......................................................... 7 7 Eastern equine e ncephalitis (EEE)
. . . . . 29, 58, 60, 61, 131, 133, 136-139, 142 144 148, 152, 195, 205, 208, 218, 211, 227 e c d y s o n e . ........................................................ 7 1 Educational Data Information Source(EDI S).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 127, 168, 227 Education Coordination C ommitt ee ( ECC).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 225 Elops saurus
. ..................................................... 4 5 e n d o t o x i n . ....................................................... 7 3 e n f o r c e m e n t
. ................................................ 231, 234 e n t o m o p a t h o g e n i c f

u n g i
. ........................................... 188 e n t o m o p h o b i a . ................................................ 29, 136 e n v i r o n m e n t a l m o n i t o r i n g . ....................................... 28, 94 Environmental Resourc e Permit (ERP).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (EPA).
. . . 18, 25, 26, 49, 65, 67, 69-74, 77, 87 97, 113, 118-120, 146, 148, 149, 155, 158, 165, 166, 197, 232-234, 236, 237 e s t e r a s e s . ................................................... 180, 183 e u tr o p h i c a t i o n . .............................................. 161, 173 e x o t i c v e g e t a t i o n . ................................................. 4 3 extension.
. . . . . . . . 79, 89, 168, 187, 193, 203, 206, 210, 220, 224, 227, 228, 238 Florida Administrative Code (F AC).
. . . . . . . . . 31, 61, 69, 95, 119, 232, 238, 239 Florida Ag ricultural and Mechanical Univer sity(F AMU).
. . 12-16, 22, 24, 26, 70 110, 124, 202, 203, 222, 228 Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection (FD EP). 26, 44, 47, 49, 60, 61, 70 Florida Depa rtment of He alth and Reha bilitative Services (F DHRS).
. . . 22, 24-26 138, 221, 222 Fe dera l Aviation Administ ration (F AA).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 240, 241 Fe dera l I nsecticide , Fung icide and Rode nticide Act ( FI FRA).
. . . . 68, 69, 232, 234

235, 238 f e n t h i o n . ............................... 121, 149, 158, 165, 178, 247-249 f i l ar i a s i s . ................................................... 195, 214 f i l l i n g . ................................................... 38, 42, 151 Flig ht Standards District Off ice ( FSDO)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 f l o o d w a t e r . ................................... 31, 40, 50, 53, 54, 88, 219 Florida Coordinating Counc il on Mosquit o Control (FCCMC). 1, 2, 16, 18, 26, 42 64, 196, 233, 237I nde x Page 255

Florida Depa rtment of Ag riculture and Consumer Service s (FD ACS).
. . . 2, 11, 14 19, 20, 22, 26, 32, 33, 61, 69, 71, 78, 87, 93, 97, 99-102, 108, 110, 115, 116 118, 124, 131, 138, 142, 146, 153, 204, 208, 211, 222, 225, 226, 229, 230 231-235, 238, 239, 241 Florida Depa rtment of Environmenta l Protection (FD EP).
. 11, 14, 26, 44, 70, 211 Florida Depa rtment of He alth and Reha bilitative Services (F DHRS).
. . . . . . 22, 49 221, 238 Florida I nstitut e of Te chnolog y

(F I T).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 27, 208 F l o r i d a L e g i s l a t u r e . ............................. 19, 21, 203, 209, 211, 239 F lo r id a M e d ic a l E n to mo lo g y

L ab o r a to ry

( F M E L )
.. . . . 2, 12-14, 16, 21, 24, 27, 49 63, 126-128, 188, 202, 208, 202, 203, 208-216, 219, 222, 227- 230 Florida Mosquito C ontrol Association (F MCA).
. . . . 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 62, 63, 81 110, 116, 129, 130, 144, 167, 174, 189 191, 215, 221, 224, 225, 228, 229, 239, 249 Florida Mosquito C ontrol Handbook.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 63, 182, 187, 191, 214 F l o r i d a S t a t e B o ar do f

H e a l t h ( F S B H )
.. . . 21, 22, 24, 48, 67, 68, 91, 137, 138, 144 202, 247 Florida Statues (F.S.).
. . . . . . . . 2, 19, 26, 42, 68-70, 146, 153, 154, 161, 204, 231 232, 235, 237, 238 f o o dw e b
. ............................................... 147, 159, 160 f o r m u l a t i o n .. . . . . . . . . . . 66, 68, 70, 74, 76, 77, 81, 84, 87, 99, 105, 108, 112, 118 168, 179, 181, 203 G a mb u s i a . .......................................... 124, 129, 161, 196 G e n e r a l U s e P e s t i c i d e s ( G U P )
. ................................... 71, 75 g e n e t i c f a c t o r s . .................................................. 180 Gra phic Information Sy stem (GI S).
. . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 35, 199, 200, 215, 218, 219 g l a s s w o rt
. ....................................................... 4 1 Global Positi oning Sy stem (GPS).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 113, 117-119, 218, 219 g l yp h o s a t e . ...................................................... 5 9 g r a n u l e . ................................................... 79, 81, 82 g round adulticiding
. 97, 98, 100, 101, 103-106, 108, 109, 112, 114, 117, 118, 156 g u i d a n c e s y s t e m s . ........................................ 113, 117, 118 Har bor B ranc h Oce anog raphic I nstitut ion (HB OI ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 221 h e a l t h r i s k
. ........................................... 35, 144, 152, 170 h e r b i c i d i n g . ...................................................... 6 6 h i g h m ar s h
. .......................................... 36, 40-42, 45, 47 h i g h p r e s s u r e . ............................................... 107, 114 I diopathic environme ntal intoleranc e (IEI ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 162, 163, 170 i m p o u n d m e n t
. .............. 21, 38, 39, 42-46, 62, 64, 151, 159, 161, 208, 219 I n d i a n R i v e r

L a g o o n ( I R L )
. ............................ 40, 62, 90, 160, 208 i n e rti n g r e d i e n t s . .................................................. 7 5 insect g rowth re g ulator (I GR).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72, 75, 149, 178, 248 I n s ti tu teo f

F o o da n dA g r ic u ltu r a l S c ie n c e s ( IF A S)
.. . . 2, 12-14, 16, 21, 24, 63, 89

91, 126, 127, 168, 172,188, 202, 208-10, 215, 222, 224, 227 I nteg rate d Pest Manag ement (IPM).
. . . . . 20, 38, 39, 66, 67, 73, 75, 78, 87, 91, 93 95, 123, 127, 145, 147, 148, 162, 177, 186I nde x Page 256

I n t e r n a t i o n a l T o x i c U n i t s ( I T U )
. .................................. 73, 74 i p r o b e n f o s . ............................................. 183, 184, 191 i s o s t e ary l a l c o h o l
. ................................................. 9 0 Juncus roe merianus
. ............................................... 4 0 j u v e n i l e h o r m o n e . .......................................... 71, 92, 164 kdr
. ....................................... 171, 180, 184, 185, 190-192 l a d y f i s h
. ......................................................... 4 5 Lagenidium giganteum
. ............................................. 6 8 l a n d i n g r a t e s . ................................................. 32, 119 larva e. . . . . . . 20, 30, 34-36, 41, 57-59, 65, 66, 71- 79, 81, 84, 86, 87, 91, 124, 125

128, 135, 136, 147, 149, 150, 157-159, 168, 170, 172, 177, 182-184 186, 214, 215, 217, 218, 221, 244 l ar v a l s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t( L S M )
. ................................. 65, 66 larv ic ide s. . . . . . 20, 34, 55, 56, 59, 65-68, 70-77, 79- 82, 84, 87-91, 123, 149, 150 156, 159, 171, 183, 186, 205, 217, 218, 221, 233 l ar v i v o r o u s f

i s h
. .............................. 38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 125, 160 L e p i d o p t e r a . ........................................... 72, 97, 99, 157 l o w m ar s h
. .................................................... 40-42 l u n ar t i d e s . ....................................................... 4 0 m a c r o c ru s t a c e a n s . ................................................. 4 5 m a i d e n c a n e . ..................................................... 5 7 malaria
. . . . . 22-24, 29, 48, 68, 75, 95, 131, 135, 137, 168, 173, 174, 181, 188-191 195, 199, 201, 213, 214, 217, 218 malathion.
. . 68, 93, 97, 98, 109, 111, 121, 149, 154, 155, 157, 158, 163, 165-169 171, 173, 174, 176, 178-180, 183, 184, 190, 191, 247-249 m a m m a l s . ................................... 53, 75, 95, 98-103, 148-150 m a n g r o v e . ................... 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 52, 77, 83, 91, 113, 219, 221 M a n s o n i a . ........................ 20, 31, 34, 36, 39, 50, 54, 57-59, 66, 133 Ma ns on ia d

y ar i
. ............................................... 54, 57 Mansonia titil lans
. ............................................. 54, 57 m e a n h i g h w a t e r

l i n e . .............................................. 4 1 m e c h a n i c a l tr ap s . .......................................... 32, 126, 127 Megalops atlanticus
. ............................................... 4 5 M e t ab o l i c r e s i s t a n c e . .............................................. 180 m e t h o p r e n e .. . . . . . . 70-72, 77, 87, 89, 90, 130, 149, 159, 161, 163, 167, 176, 178 189, 248, 249 M i a m i b l u e b u t t e r f

l y . ............................................. 157 m i c r o a l g a e . ..................................................... 126 m i n e r a l o i l
. ...................................................... 6 8 m o n i t o ri n g. . . . . . 28, 30-34, 36, 50, 88, 94, 109, 132, 138-140, 142, 143, 147, 177 182, 183, 188-190, 197, 205, 206, 208, 219, 248 m o n o m o l e c u l ar

s u r f a c e f i l m s . .............................. 59, 76, 91, 169 m o s q u i t o c o n tr o l i n w ar

ar e a s . ....................................... 2 3 m o s q u i t o s u r v e i l l a n c e . ........................ 28-33, 36, 94, 199, 218, 219 M o t e M ar i n e L ab o r a t o ry . .................................... 25, 83, 221 m u l l e t
. .......................................................... 4 5I nde x Page 257

naled.
. . . . . 93, 97, 98, 111, 122, 149, 154, 155, 158, 163, 174, 175, 178, 179, 208 247, 249 National Ge odetic Ve rtical Datum (NGVD)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 Navy Entomology

Center f or Excellence (NECE) .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201, 202 n o t i c e dg e n e r a l p e r m i t
. ............................................. 4 7 n u tr i e n t
. ................................................... 45, 52-56 o c t e n o l
. ................................................. 33, 195, 199 o i l
. ............................... 65, 68, 75-77, 89, 91, 105-107, 111, 114 Open Ma rsh Water Mana g ement (O MWM).
. . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 43, 47, 62, 63, 161 o r g a n o c h l o r i n e s . ................................................. 148 org anophosphate
. . . . . . . 68, 74, 152, 153, 155, 166, 168, 172, 173, 179-181, 190 192, 208 o v i p o s i t i o n s i t e s . ........................................... 23, 42, 160 o x i d a s e . ............................................ 183, 188, 189, 191 p a c k a g e p l a n t s . ............................................. 49, 51, 52 Papilio aris todemus ponce anus . ..................................... 157 P B O
. .................................................. 178, 180, 186 p e l l e t
. ........................................................... 7 9 p e s t i c i d e c o n c e n tr a t e . ............................................. 237 Pesticide Environmental Stewa rdship Prog ram (PESP).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 87 p e s t i c i d e e x p o s u r e . ....................................... 152, 155, 173 pe sti c idema na g e me nt anddis po sa l r e g ulatio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 P e s t i c i d e R e v i e w C o u n c i l
. ....................................... 26, 69 p e tr o l e u md i s t i l l a t e . ............................................... 106 p e tr o l e u mo i l
. ............................................... 107, 111 PHE REC
. . . . . . . 24, 70, 87, 110, 124, 139, 187, 202-208, 218-220, 222, 228- 230 p i c k e r e l w e e d
. .................................................... 5 7 p i p e r o n y l b u t o x i d e . ............................................... 178 P i s t i a . ........................................................ 34, 54 P R C
. ........................................................... 6 9 p r o p o x u r . ................................................... 149, 179 p r o t o z o a n ............................................... 125, 135, 198 Psorophora columbiae
. .................................. 66, 96, 135, 219 p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n . .......................................... 20, 145, 230 public health.
. . . . . . 11-17, 20, 24, 25, 27, 35, 45, 70, 72, 93, 95, 98-103, 110, 116

124, 136-139, 141, 144-147, 150, 152, 154, 161, 162, 167, 170, 171 187, 197, 201-204, 206, 209-211, 217, 222, 224- 228, 232, 233, 237-239 p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n . ............................................... 127 p u b l i c l a n d s . ................................. 70, 147, 159, 161, 173, 237 p u m p . ....................................... 36, 79, 105, 109, 129, 245 p yr e t h r i n . ............................................... 157, 167, 179 p yr e t h r o i d
. .................. 109, 114, 149, 168, 178, 180, 181, 184, 189-192 p yr e t h ru m . ................................................ 68, 99, 100 r e m o v a l tr ap p i n g t e c h n i q u e s . ....................................... 126 r e p e l l e n t s . .............. 126, 144, 193, 195, 197, 198, 200, 203, 205, 207, 227I nde x Page 258

resistanc e. . . . . . . 23, 24, 68, 77, 87, 89, 91, 98, 127, 129, 130, 148, 155, 167, 168

171, 177-193, 195, 198, 205, 206, 208, 218, 222, 228, 247-249 r e s m e t h r i n . .................. 93, 101, 111, 149, 158, 166, 175, 176, 178, 179 R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n a n dR e c o v e ry A c t
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235, 236 Rh izo ph or a m an gle
. ............................................... 4 1 ri sk s. . . . . 19, 44, 45, 67, 87, 94, 107, 108, 145-148, 153, 155, 156, 173, 205, 236 R i v u l u s . ........................................................ 125 r o t ary d i t c h i n g . ..................................... 43, 44, 47, 161, 208 Ro tati o n a l Imp o u n d me n t M a n a g e me n t ( RIM )
.. . . . . . . . . . 38, 39, 45-47, 161, 219 S a l i c o r n i a . .................................................... 41, 45 salt marsh.
. . . 24-26, 41-43, 45, 47, 57, 62- 64, 66, 79, 91, 128, 135, 160-163, 166

167, 169, 171, 178, 179, 204, 208, 212, 218, 220, 221, 233 sa ltm ars h mo sq uit oe s. . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33, 38-42, 54, 63, 68, 159, 194, 208, 212 s a l t w o rt
. ...................................................... 41, 83 Scientific Evaluation Section (SES).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 70 S c o u r g e . ....................................................... 134 s c ru b m ar s h
. .................................................. 41, 44 s e d g e s . .......................................................... 5 7 s e p t i c s y s t e m s . .................................................... 5 1 s i l i c a . ........................................................... 7 6 s i l l s . ............................................................ 4 4 S i n d b i s v i ru s ( S IN V )
. ............................................. 217 so il.
. . . 44, 51, 52, 55, 56, 69, 73, 99, 124, 149, 160, 161, 220, 235, 236, 244, 245 s o i l s a l i n i t y . .................................................. 44, 160 S o l i dW a s t e M a n a g e m e n tT ru s t F u n d
. ................................. 6 1 source reduc tion.
. . 23, 26, 31, 34, 38-42, 47, 48, 65, 66, 68, 86, 87, 110, 145, 148 160, 164, 188, 208, 215, 233 Sp ar tin a a lte rn ifl or

a . .............................................. 4 0 Spartina patens
. .................................................. 4 0 s p r a y d r i f t
. .......................................... 113, 114, 118, 121 St. L ouis ence phalitis (SL E).
. . . 29, 54, 96, 131-133, 136-139, 142, 144, 148, 151 152, 166, 171, 195, 208, 211, 227 S t a t e I I A i d
. ...................................................... 4 8 s t o r m w a t e r . .......................... 28, 38, 39, 47-51, 213, 225, 244, 246 Subcommitt ee on Manag ed Mar shes (SOMM).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 42, 47, 64, 233 s u b s tr a t e . .............................................. 45, 54, 83, 182 s u m i t h r i n . ................................... 93, 103, 166, 178, 179, 183 surveillance
. . . . . . 25, 28-37, 39, 58, 66, 93, 94, 131, 132, 136-144, 152, 156, 159

163, 187, 193, 194, 199, 200, 203, 206, 216, 218-220, 229 s w a l e s . ............................................... 51, 79, 245, 246 s y n e r g i s t
. ................................................... 180, 184 s y n t h e t i c p e s t i c i d e s . .................................. 145, 146, 148, 154 targ e t sp e c ie s. . 30, 65, 72, 78, 86, 88, 114, 123, 127, 146, 147, 159, 161, 185, 186 t arp o n . ....................................................... 45, 46 te me ph os . . . . . . . . 75, 78, 83, 91, 92, 149, 158, 178, 182, 189, 196, 208, 221, 249 t h e r m a l f o g . ............................................. 106, 154, 158I nde x Page 259

t i d a l c r e e k
. .................................................. 209, 219 t i r e s . .................................... 38, 39, 60, 61, 75, 130, 160, 214 t o l e r a n c e . ........................ 95, 151, 164, 174, 178, 183, 188, 189, 191 T o x o rh y n c h i t e s . ...................................... 125, 129, 130, 214 tr a n s i e n t s . ....................................................... 4 5 try psin modulating oostatic hormone (TMOF ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 215 Ultra L ow Volume (U LV).
. . . . 24, 25, 50, 79, 81, 93, 94, 106-112, 115, 121, 154 155, 158,198, 208, 218 United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture ( USDA).
. 11, 13, 15, 23, 24, 26, 90, 107

125, 126, 145, 174, 196, 197, 202, 229, 248 University

of F lorida.
. . . . . 2, 12-14, 16, 18, 21, 49, 63, 65, 89, 91, 126, 164, 167 188, 196, 202, 208, 217, 224, 227 U n i v e r s i t y

o f M i a m i
. .............................................. 217 U n i v e r s i t y

o f S o u t h F l o r i d a . ........................................ 217 w a d i n g b i r d s . ............................................ 160, 212, 216 w a s t e w a t e r . ........................... 28, 38, 39, 49-56, 66, 194, 198, 213 w a t e r h y a c i n t h
. ............................................. 54, 57-59 w a t e r h y a c i n t h b e e t l e ............................................... 5 9 w a t e r l e t t u c e . ......................................... 34, 36, 54, 57-59 w a t e r l e t t u c e w e e v i l
. ............................................... 5 9 w a t e r m a n a g e m e n td i s tr i c t
. ................................ 44, 47, 49, 219 w a t e r f o w l
. ............................................ 47, 62, 163, 212 w e i r s . .................................................... 46, 48, 221 We s t N il e e n c e p h a li ti s ( WN E )
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 132, 148, 152, 195, 208, 227 West Nile virus (WNV).
. . . . . . . . . . 54, 78, 132, 133, 138-140, 142-144, 195, 205 211-213, 218-220, 223 w e t l a n d s e c o l o g y . ........................................ 193, 194, 211 W i n g B e a t s . ............................................. 121, 122, 228 W o rk P r o j e c t s A d m i n i s tr a t i o n ( W P A )
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 23, 41 W o r l dW ar

I I
. ........................... 22, 23, 74, 76, 146, 178, 196, 201 y e l l o w f e v e r . ............. 21, 22, 35, 61, 67, 131, 134, 137, 195, 198, 214, 217