Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link

Volume 8, Number 12—December 2002

Research

Vector Competence of California Mosquitoes for West Nile virus

Laura B. Goddard*Comments to Author , Amy E. Roth*, William K. Reisen*, and Thomas W. Scott*
Author affiliations: *University of California, Davis, California, USA;

Main Article

Table 2

Infection and transmission rates for California mosquito species orally infected with 107.1±0.1 PFU/mL of West Nile virus

Species Source by county Day transmission attempted No. tested Infection ratea Transmission rateb
Culex tarsalis Yolo 7 30 87 60
14 1 100 100
Kern 7 15 93 40
14 35 74 60
Riverside 7 49 94 10
14 55 85 62
Cx. pipiens quinquefasciatus Kern 7 50 86 4
14 50 58 52
Riverside 7 60 8 0
7 60 13 2
14 58 28 19
Orange 7 45 80 9
14 50 66 36
Cx. p. pipiens Shasta 7 17 100 0
14 31 100 71
Cx. stigmatosoma San Bernardino 7 15 67 0
14 48 77 19
Cx. erythrothorax Orange 7 15 100 33
14 25 100 64
Ochlerotatus dorsalis Kern 7 30 50 13
14 29 41 34
Oc. melanimon San Luis Obispo 7 50 46 18
14 60 48 20
Oc. sierrensis Lake 7 40 5 3
14 50 14 6
Aedes vexans Riverside 14 22 32 23
Culiseta inornata Kern 14 28 75 21

aPercent of mosquito bodies positive for WNV.
bPercent of transmission attempts positive for WNV.

Main Article

Page created: July 19, 2010
Page updated: July 19, 2010
Page reviewed: July 19, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external