Search

Simple Summary: Many mosquito species not only serve as a nuisance but also pose a threat to public health by transmitting diseases to both humans and animals. We report an updated list of all known mosquito species identified in Arizona to date. It replaces the most recent lists published about 50 years ago. We also report their collection years, methods, areas/locations, feeding preferences, and the diseases they can or may carry or transmit. Arizona is home to many mosquito species, some of which are known vectors of infectious diseases that harm both humans and animals. Here, we provide an overview of the 56 mosquito species that have been identified in the State to date, but also discuss their known feeding preference and the diseases they can (potentially) transmit to humans and animals. This list is unlikely to be complete for several reasons: (i) Arizona's mosquitoes are not systematically surveyed in many areas, (ii) surveillance efforts often target specific species of interest, and (iii) doubts have been raised by one or more scientists about the accuracy of some collection records, which has been noted in this article. There needs to be an integrated and multifaceted surveillance approach that involves entomologists and epidemiologists, but also social scientists, wildlife ecologists, ornithologists, representatives from the agricultural department, and irrigation and drainage districts. This will allow public health officials to (i) monitor changes in current mosquito species diversity and abundance, (ii) monitor the introduction of new or invasive species, (iii) identify locations or specific populations that are more at risk for mosquito-borne diseases, and (iv) effectively guide vector control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monitoring local mosquito populations for insecticide resistance is critical for effective vector-borne disease control. However, widely used phenotypic assays, which are designed to monitor the emergence and spread of insecticide resistance (technical resistance), do not translate well to the efficacy of vector control products to suppress mosquito numbers in the field (practical resistance). This is because standard testing conditions such as environmental conditions, exposure dose, and type of substrate differ dramatically from those experienced by mosquitoes under field conditions. In addition, field mosquitoes have considerably different physiological characteristics such as age and blood-feeding status. Beyond this, indirect impacts of insecticide resistance and/or exposure on mosquito longevity, pathogen development, host-seeking behavior, and blood- feeding success impact disease transmission. Given the limited number of active ingredients currently available and the observed discordance between resistance and disease transmission, we conclude that additional testing guidelines are needed to determine practical resistance—the efficacy of vector control tools under relevant local conditions— in order to obtain programmatic impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]