EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 33 (2026) Parasite, 33 (2026) 31 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
Parasite
Volume 33, 2026
Article Number 31
Number of page(s) 13
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2026033
Published online 03 June 2026

© G. Balatsos et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2026

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

The global expansion and establishment of Aedes invasive mosquito (AIM) species in new geographic areas present a growing threat to public health worldwide due to the role of this species in the transmission of arboviruses such as dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever. In recent decades, Europe has increasingly faced challenges with AIM species, introduced primarily through global trade and travel [32, 53]. While several AIM species are sporadically imported, only four have successfully established across Europe: the Japanese bush mosquito Aedes (Ae.) japonicus, Theobald, 1901), the Korean bush mosquito (Aedes (Ae.) koreicus, Edwards, 1917), the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes (Ae.) albopictus, Skuse, 1894), and dengue mosquito or yellow fever mosquito (Aedes (Ae.) aegypti, Linnaeus, 1762) [15, 24, 32, 53]. These Aedes species exhibit high invasive potential, primarily driven by their ecological adaptability, especially their capacity to produce drought-resistant diapausing eggs, while Ae. aegypti can additionally persist through quiescence [17, 18, 32, 58]. The pathways of introduction and spread are scale-dependent and closely linked to human activity. At the global level, passive transport via maritime freight, especially in association with goods such as used tires and ornamental plants (e.g., lucky bamboo), is considered the primary route of introduction [28, 33]. Aircraft also contribute significantly to long-distance dispersal. Within Europe, national and regional spread is largely driven by ground transportation, particularly through vehicles and trains, as these species are frequently transported inadvertently with human movement [24, 28, 32, 38, 59].

In addition, the establishment and spread of AIM further highlights the urgent need for strong surveillance systems at high-risk points of entry and rapid emergency response. Aedes japonicus has significantly expanded its range and now is established in many European countries, including Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Spain [1, 10, 15, 26, 27, 36]. Similarly, Ae. koreicus, although still restricted, has been reported in several European countries including Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, Hungary, and Germany [7, 39, 48].

Among the invasive mosquito species introduced to Europe, Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti are among the most concerning due to their proven roles as vectors of dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya, and Zika arboviruses [29]. Aedes albopictus has achieved extensive global distribution, including in North and South America and Europe, representing the widest distribution ever recorded for the species [21, 53]. Since July 2024, Ae. albopictus has newly become classified as established in the Republic of Cyprus and Slovakia [54]. Despite its long-standing presence in parts of southern Europe, the species distribution remains dynamic, with continued expansion across the continent. Additionally, sporadic introductions without confirmed establishment have been reported in Czechia, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and Sweden, highlighting the current risk of further geographical expansion facilitated by human-mediated transport and increasing climatic suitability [21]. Aedes aegypti was widely distributed across southern Europe, the Near East, and North Africa from the late 18th century until the mid-20th century [22, 61]. During this period, the mosquito was responsible for significant disease burden, including a severe dengue outbreak in Athens in 1927–1928 [45]. However, the species largely disappeared from continental Europe by the 1950s. Importantly, Ae. aegypti has since re-established populations in the Republic of Cyprus and self-sustaining populations in several outermost EU regions, notably Madeira (Portugal) and La Reunion, France as well as in the neighboring countries Türkiye and Egypt [22, 28, 49, 54]. The Republic of Cyprus, with its warm Mediterranean climate and strategic geographic position, has long been identified as a high-risk area for AIM introduction. Despite early surveillance efforts initiated in 2019, Ae. albopictus was not detected until October 2022 in the port area of Limassol, where it was subsequently confirmed in nearby municipalities of Mesa Geitonia and Germasogeia. In parallel, Ae. aegypti was recorded in November 2021 in the Larnaca district, marking its first appearance in the Republic of Cyprus since 1959 and its confirmed overwintering in 2022 [40, 54]. Currently in Cyprus, Ae. albopictus is established in multiple urban areas, whereas Ae. aegypti remains spatially restricted to Larnaca District under active control.

Whereas Ae. albopictus has been the vector in recent European mosquito-borne disease outbreaks of Dengue and chikungunya, the reestablishment of Ae. aegypti poses a higher risk for public health mainly due to the fact that it is consider the primary vector for these diseases [47, 50]. Thus, the recent reintroduction of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in the Republic of Cyprus warrants the establishment of an efficient surveillance system for both species, to support the surveillance program and vector control interventions. Following the detection of both species and with the technical guidance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Republic of Cyprus initiated a coordinated emergency response against Ae. aegypti [12, 54]. As a result, in April 2023, a contingency plan was prepared by the IAEA and adopted by the Ministry of Health, aiming to eradicate Ae. aegypti from Larnaca District. Among others, the contingency plan recommended the establishment of a national surveillance system, an enhanced vector control program with biocides, a door-to-door campaign, and an environment-friendly control program employing the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) [12, 54] [4, 5]. The pilot SIT trial was implemented in Kiti, Larnaca district, with promising initial outcomes. Its continuation requires accurate baseline data on the wild population density, and in parallel the assessment of the survival and dispersal of sterile males [3].

Evaluating the performance of commonly used adult traps, such as the BG-Sentinel 2 trap (Biogents, Regensburg, Germany) baited with dry ice and/or BG-Lure, to sample Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus under different environmental settings, is essential for enhancing vector surveillance and control strategies. While several studies have evaluated the performance of the BG-Sentinel 2 trap, such as in La Reunion, no studies have been conducted in a Mediterranean country where Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus occur under the same climate and environmental conditions [14, 42, 44]. The results are intended to recommend the most effective monitoring strategy to be used in future SIT interventions in the Republic of Cyprus, where an effective male trapping system is a critical component to estimate the sterile-to-wild male ratio, sterile male survival and distribution in the target area, and program success. Additionally, the results may guide the selection of optimal trap configurations and attractants for entomological surveillance programs in other European countries, particularly at points of entry (PoEs), to enhance the early detection and monitoring of invasive mosquito species and allow a rapid emergency response [35]. This is of paramount importance for European countries implementing active surveillance programs at PoEs that have connections with countries where Ae. aegypti is established. Enhancing the early detection of invasive mosquito species by adopting efficient surveillance systems and tools is crucial to implement rapid interventions measures, thereby mitigating the risk of establishment and spread within Europe. Therefore, the present study aimed to validate the efficacy of BG-Sentinel 2 traps using various baiting combinations; BG-Lure (human skin scent mimics), dry ice (CO2) and their combination compared to unbaited traps, for the surveillance of adult Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus, and native Culex (Cx.) pipiens using a Latin square field design.

Methods

Study areas

Field trials were conducted in the Republic of Cyprus from October 20 to November 14, 2024, in the cities of Nicosia and Larnaca (Fig. 1). This study period was selected because it aligns with the high-density period for Ae. aegypti in Larnaca and captures the secondary late-autumn surge of Ae. albopictus observed in Nicosia, following its primary peak in late summer (unpublished data). Nicosia (35.1856° N, 33.3823° E) is the capital of the Republic of Cyprus, situated at approximately 160 m above sea level. This city experiences a semi-arid Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers, and mild winters [23]. Sampling was conducted in urban residential areas characterized by irrigated gardens and domestic water containers, where Ae. albopictus has recently established.

Thumbnail: Figure 1 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 1

Map of the Republic of Cyprus showing the study regions and sampling sites. Each region (Nicosia and Larnaca) included two sampling sites, where four trap configurations were deployed at each site. Panels A and B show the locations and distribution of sampling points in Nicosia, specifically in the municipalities of Nicosia and Strovolos. Panels C and D show the locations and distribution of sampling points in Larnaca, specifically in the municipalities of Dromolaxia–Meneou and Larnaca.

Larnaca (34.918394° N, 33.620065° E) is a coastal city located at approximately 0 to 26 m above the sea level, with a hot-summer Mediterranean climate, high relative humidity during the warm season, and mild winters [23]. Sampling sites in Larnaca were in residential peripheral (semi-urban/suburban) areas characterized by a low density of inhabitants and numerous potential breeding sites, supporting large populations of container-breeding Aedes mosquitoes. Specifically, the Dromolaxia–Meneou and Mackenzie areas are characterized by predominantly detached housing, limited high-rise development, and abundant outdoor spaces such as yards, gardens, and auxiliary structures that favor the presence of artificial containers.

In each location, two study sites with similar environmental conditions were selected, each comprising four BG-Sentinel 2 trap sampling stations, yielding a total of eight trap sampling points. The selected sites shared comparable urban land use, vegetation cover, and climatic conditions. Sampling sites in both Larnaca and Nicosia were selected based on prior surveillance data to maximize the detection density, with locations in Larnaca emphasizing proximity to previously identified Ae. aegypti hotspots and those in Nicosia emphasizing areas near known Ae. albopictus hotspots. Due to the absence of Ae. albopictus in Larnaca and Ae. aegypti in Nicosia, mosquito samples were transported to field laboratories in the city where they were collected and processed there, to avoid the risk of introducing either species to areas where they are not currently present.

Study design

The study areas and period (autumn months) were selected to agree with the peak activity of both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, based to the available routine surveillance data from the Ministry of Health. Consequently, our samplings ensure that the collected data are representative of the highest population densities and maximize the sensitivity of the study for both male and female mosquitoes.

Four BG-Sentinel 2 trap configurations were evaluated using a Latin square design, as described in Table 1. To avoid cross-contamination of any residual attractants between experimental conditions, all traps were brand new at the beginning of the study, and each trap was only used for a specific type of attractant configuration throughout the study.

Table 1

Descriptions of BG-Sentinel trap configurations tested in the field experiment.

At each sampling site, the four trap configurations were deployed simultaneously in a clockwise arrangement, ensuring a minimum inter-trap distance of 90 m to minimize bait interference [19]. Traps were placed in the peri-domiciliary areas of local residences, in shaded, rain-protected, and secure locations with prior consent from residents. To standardize micro-environmental conditions as much as possible, traps were typically positioned near vegetation or other sheltered micro-habitats, avoiding direct sunlight, strong wind exposure, and obvious breeding containers whenever possible. Traps using CO2 as attractant were loaded with 4 kg of dry ice pellets contained in an insulated cooler bag placed inside the trap. This quantity of dry ice was sufficient to supply CO2 for 24 h.

Each baiting treatment was rotated among the four trap positions every 24 h according to a Latin square design. This ensured that each trap position received each baiting treatment once during a complete 4-day sampling block. The 4-day rotation was repeated for four consecutive weeks, resulting in a total of 16 observations per trap configuration and position. This design controlled for environmental variation associated with trap location and sampling date, which served as proxies for local habitat conditions and short-term weather factors such as temperature, humidity, and wind [14].

At the end of each 24-hour sampling period, collection nets from the BG-Sentinel 2 traps were retrieved, transported to the respective laboratories, and stored at −20 °C to kill the mosquito specimens. Mosquitoes captured in the traps during the study period were identified to species level using taxonomic keys [9, 16], counted and recorded by sex in a relational database management system for subsequent analysis.

Data analysis

In this study, we addressed the primary question of which combination of dry ice and BG-Lure maximizes BG-Sentinel 2 trap performance (i.e., the optimized baiting configuration). We fitted a separate Bayesian mixed-effect Poisson model for each combination of species (Ae. albopictus, Ae. aegypti or Cx. pipiens) and sex (male or female), the latter because males and females are not attracted to the traps for the same cues: seeking hosts for females, mating for males. Each model had the same fixed effects: dry ice (coded yes/no), BG Lure (coded yes/no), and their interaction. Two random effects – assumed to be independently and identically distributed, were associated with the model intercept, to account for random fluctuations in mosquito density by replicate and location. Posterior distributions of the fitted values were used to estimate relative risks (RR) compared with the unbaited control configuration. Posterior distributions from the Bayesian mixed-effects models were used to estimate the expected number of mosquitoes captured per trapping session for each baiting configuration. In this study, we refer to this model-based expected count as the density of mosquitoes, expressed as the predicted mean number of individuals collected per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. We use the term density in a relative ecological sense, as an index of local mosquito abundance rather than an absolute estimate of population size per unit area (Table S1). These RR quantified the change in expected mosquito captures when BG-Sentinel 2 traps were baited with dry ice alone, BG-Lure alone, or both attractants combined. Data analysis, was performed within the R software environment for statistical computing and graphics [43]. Bayesian models were fitted using the integrated Laplace approximation (inla) of the Markov chain process [46]. Throughout this study, we set α = 0.05. For completeness, fitted model coefficients are shown in the Supplementary Material.

Furthermore, ecological community parameters were calculated using standard biodiversity indices. Species richness was estimated using the Margalef index, diversity using the Shannon index (H′), and dominance using the Simpson index, all computed with the vegan package in R (Oksanen et al., 2013) [37]. Pielou’s evenness index was calculated as Eh = H′/lnS, where H′ is the Shannon diversity index and S is the number of species [41].

In addition, weather data during the sampling period were obtained from the Department of Meteorology of the Republic of Cyprus. Data were collected from the Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) located in Athalassa (Nicosia) (35° 08′ 27.50″ N, 33° 23′ 47.85″ E), and at the Larnaca Airport (34° 52′ 24.71″ N, 33° 37′ 02.57″ E). Both stations are located approximately 3.5 km from the corresponding city’s sampling blocks. We collected data on environmental variables known to influence mosquito activity (and consequently trap catch variability), including temperature, humidity, and wind speed.

Results

A total of 1,649 mosquitoes were collected during the field trials. In Nicosia, the mosquito populations were dominated by Cx. pipiens (n = 702, females: 58.0% / males: 3.8%) and Ae. albopictus (n = 421, females: 23.4% / males: 13.6%). In Larnaca, Cx. pipiens (n = 349, females: 48.8% / males: 20.2%) and Ae. aegypti (n = 133, females: 21.9% / males: 4.3%) were the predominant species. Other species identified included Cx. theileri, Cx. perexiguus, and Culiseta longiareolata in Nicosia, while Cx. theileri, Cx. perexiguus, and Ae. caspius were present in Larnaca (Table 2 and Table S2). Notably, Ae. cretinus was not detected in either study area during this period.

Table 2

Total number of mosquitoes captured per species in each study area (Nicosia and Larnaca) from October 20 to November 14, 2024 (Cx. = Culex, Ae. = Aedes, Cs. = Culiseta).

The species composition differed between the two study areas. In Nicosia, the community was strongly dominated by Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus, resulting in a Shannon diversity index of H′ = 0.729. Although Nicosia had a higher total mosquito abundance, its lower evenness (E = 0.453) reflects the marked dominance of these two species. In contrast, Larnaca exhibited slightly higher diversity (H′ = 0.798) and evenness (E = 0.496), supported by a more balanced distribution among Cx. pipiens, Ae. aegypti, and several secondary species (Table 2). Subsequently, we focused on evaluating the attractiveness of baited BG-Sentinel 2 traps to (i) Ae. aegypti in Larnaca, (ii) Ae. albopictus in Nicosia, and (iii) Cx. pipiens in both regions.

Aedes aegypti (Larnaca)

The surveillance efficacy for Ae. aegypti is summarized in Figure 2. For males, the density remained consistently low across all trap configurations, with a mean capture rate ranging from 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.3; dry ice only) to 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1–0.4; dry ice + lure). No significant differences were observed between trap configurations for males.

Thumbnail: Figure 2 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 2

Model-estimated density and relative density of Aedes aegypti fitted with a Bayesian Poisson model with data collected during a field trial with a Latin square design in Larnaca (Cyprus), October–November 2024 (n = 8 trapping sessions for each grey dot). Separate models were fitted for males and females. Density represents the posterior mean expected number of mosquitoes captured per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. Relative density represents the ratio of this expected count to that of the control group (no dry ice, no BG-Lure), which was set to 1. Red segments indicate 95% CI. For relative density, intervals crossing the vertical dashed red line at 1 indicate that the null hypothesis of no difference from the control cannot be rejected (α = 0.05).

In contrast, female densities were significantly higher. A synergistic effect was observed when combining dry ice and BG-Lure, resulting in a significant increase in capture efficacy with an RR of 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6–4.5) compared to the unbaited control.

Aedes albopictus (Nicosia)

Due to the high capture rates of Ae. albopictus, separate Bayesian models were utilized (Mixed-effect Poisson for males; Marginal Negative Binomial for females) (Fig. 3). For Ae. albopictus, sex-specific differences in response to attractants were observed. In males, the use of dry ice alone had a significant negative effect on capture efficacy (RR = 0.297, 95% CI: 0.175–0.467). This negative impact persisted, though less severely, when dry ice was combined with BG-Lure (RR = 0.612, 95% CI: 0.427–0.844). In contrast, no significant differences were detected between any of the attractant combinations and the control group for female Ae. albopictus in this trial.

Thumbnail: Figure 3 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 3

Model-estimated density and relative density of Aedes albopictus fitted with a Bayesian mixed-effect Poisson model (males), or a Bayesian marginal negative binomial model (females) of attractiveness implemented in a field trial with a Latin square design in Nicosia (Cyprus), October–November 2024 (n = 8 trapping sessions for each combination of sex, dry ice, and lure). Separate models were fitted for males and females. Density represents the posterior mean expected number of mosquitoes captured per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. Relative density represents the ratio of this expected count to that of the control group (no dry ice, no BG-Lure), which was set to 1. Red segments indicate 95% CI. For relative density, intervals crossing the vertical dashed red line at 1 indicate that the null hypothesis of no difference from the control cannot be rejected (α = 0.05).

Culex pipiens (Nicosia and Larnaca)

The response of Cx. pipiens showed distinct sexual dimorphism regarding attractant preference (Fig. 4). In males, the effects of dry ice were negligible; however, BG-Lure used alone resulted in a small but statistically significant increase in capture efficacy (RR = 1.533, 95% CI: 1.131–2.031). This positive effect was not observed when BG-Lure was combined with dry ice, suggesting that the presence of carbon dioxide neutralized the lure’s contribution. In contrast, females showed a strong and statistically significant positive response to dry ice, regardless of whether BG-Lure was present. Relative risks reached 15.95 (95% CI: 14.50–17.54) for dry ice alone and 15.32 (95% CI: 13.91–16.86) for the combined treatment. The addition of BG-Lure did not significantly improve performance beyond that achieved with dry ice alone.

Thumbnail: Figure 4 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 4

Density and relative density of Cx. pipiens fitted with a Bayesian mixed-effect Poisson model of BG-Sentinel 2 trap attractiveness on data collected during a field trial with a Latin square design in Larnaca and Nicosia (Cyprus), October–November 2024 (n = 8 trapping sessions for each combination of sex, dry ice, and lure). Separate models were fitted for males and females. Density represents the posterior mean expected number of mosquitoes captured per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. Relative density represents the ratio of this expected count to that of the control group (no dry ice, no BG-Lure), which was set to 1. Red segments indicate 95% CI. For relative density, intervals crossing the vertical dashed red line at 1 indicate that the null hypothesis of no difference from the control cannot be rejected (α = 0.05).

Environmental conditions

Throughout the sampling period, average temperatures in Nicosia remained stable between 20 and 24 °C, with humidity ranging from 40% to 80%, and wind speeds ranging from 1 Bft (average 0.9 m/s) to almost 2 Bft (average 2.9 m/s) (Figs. 1 and 2). In Larnaca, temperatures were similarly stable at approximately 20 °C, humidity ranged from 40% to 80%, and wind speeds showed greater variation, reaching up to 4 Bft (average 5.6 m/s) (Figs. 5 and 6).

Thumbnail: Figure 5 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 5

Environmental conditions in Nicosia and Larnaca during the sampling period. The graph shows the daily average temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) recorded at the Athalassa and Larnaca airport, Automatic Weather Station. In Nicosia, the temperatures remained relatively stable between 20 and 24 °C, while humidity ranged from 40% to 80%. In Larnaca, the temperatures remained stable at approximately 20 °C, while humidity ranged from 40% to 80%.

Thumbnail: Figure 6 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 6

Wind conditions in Nicosia and Larnaca during the sampling period. The graph shows the recorded wind speeds, ranging from 1 Bft (average 0.9 m/s) to almost 2 Bft (average 2.9 m/s), measured at the Athalassa Automatic Weather Station. In Larnaca, the recorded wind speeds, which exhibited greater variation than in Nicosia, reaching up to 4 Bft (average 5.6 m/s), were measured at the Larnaca Airport Automatic Weather Station.

Discussion

The current study evaluated the performance of different baits for BG-Sentinel 2 traps in detecting medically important mosquito species under field conditions representative of southeastern Mediterranean urban environments. Our findings provide critical data for designing effective surveillance strategies and vector control programs including SIT, especially in newly colonized regions with limited historical data.

For Ae. aegypti, male capture rates were consistently low across all baiting treatments and no attractant combination produced statistically supported improvements relative to the unbaited control. Female capture rates were higher and the combination of dry ice and BG-Lure was associated with a statistically supported increase in trap catches compared with the control. These results suggest that, under the study conditions, combined host-associated cues can enhance female Ae. aegypti captures, whereas male detection remains challenging. From a surveillance perspective, low male capture rates imply that absence of captures cannot be interpreted as absence of the species when trap density is limited. Consequently, higher trap densities or complementary surveillance tools may be required, particularly during early invasion or post-suppression phases. The addition of dry ice as bait did not increase trap attractiveness for male Ae. aegypti in our study, a result that contrasts with previous research showing enhanced BG-Sentinel 2 trap performance when carbon dioxide is used as an attractant [8, 14, 60]. This discrepancy may reflect differences in local mosquito density, trap location, environmental conditions, and host availability, all of which can influence the strength and dispersion of attractants and thus mosquito responses in the field. It may also indicate that the uncontrolled and temporary flow of CO2 is not as attractive as continuous controlled release, which is possible with compressed CO2 [14].

Although dry ice alone did not significantly increase Ae. aegypti captures, its combination with BG-Lure did enhance female trap performance. This finding contrasts with other studies which report increased effectiveness of BG-Sentinel traps when baited with carbon dioxide [30, 42]. Considering that both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were absent from the Republic of Cyprus until very recently (and therefore the populations currently established on the island did not have much time to build up), the lack of benefit attributable to CO2 observed in our study might be partially explained by a low population density of these species, especially for Ae. albopictus which has already been established for many years in other Mediterranean countries. In the case of Ae. aegypti, the observed population levels are relatively low considering that the Cyprus Ministry of Health has implemented an immediate response, following its first detection, including door-to-door actions and SIT applications [13]. In addition, trap location may have influenced attractant performance, as mosquito host-seeking and resting behavior in these newly established populations is still being characterized under local environmental conditions.

Another factor that could affect the overall efficiency of the baits in Larnaca is the relatively windy conditions prevailing in this area, which during the sampling period reached up to 5.6 m/s, and never dipped below 2 m/s (Fig. 6). Wind speeds at this level can affect the linearity of the plume of attractant and reduce its efficiency. Importantly, previous studies have reported that wind speeds as low as 0.5 m/s can reduce mosquito trap catches by up to 50% [11]. Therefore, our results suggest that attractant effectiveness may vary across environmental contexts and highlight the importance of localized trap validation before implementation. Detailed information on habitat features, such as vegetation density, proximity to alternative hosts or breeding sites, and small-scale structural variation was not systematically recorded. These factors can influence BG-Sentinel 2 trap performance for Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus [51], and their inclusion in future studies could help further refine the interpretation and applicability of our findings.

Unlike Ae. aegypti, the detection of male Ae. albopictus was better explained by the full Poisson model, which revealed significant effects of the attractant type. Dry ice alone had a strong and statistically significant negative effect on trap attractiveness, whereas BG-Lure had a weaker, non-significant negative effect. These results imply a complex behavioral response of male Ae. albopictus to synthetic host cues, potentially influenced by competing environmental factors or local adaptation. These findings are particularly relevant for SIT programs, where accurate estimation of male abundance is essential for measuring sterile-to-wild ratios, which is fundamental to guide the field releases of sterile males. Therefore, BG Sentinel 2 traps are an appropriate tool for estimating sterile-to-wild male ratios, as a complementary approach to the human landing collection method [55]. A 2022 study from La Réunion reported that adding CO2 markedly increased male Ae. albopictus detection in BG-Sentinel traps, while BG-Lure provided no additional benefit [14]. These findings contrast with our results, where dry ice alone reduced male captures and the CO2–BG-Lure combination only partially improved performance. Several factors may explain these discrepancies, including differences in CO2 delivery systems (cylinders vs. dry ice), the environmental conditions between study sites, and potential strain-specific behavioral variation. Such differences highlight the need to better understand how attractant type and local ecological context influence male Ae. albopictus trap responsiveness, particularly for SIT applications. For female Ae. albopictus, neither attractant alone nor in combination significantly influenced trap catch, reinforcing the need for alternative or supplementary monitoring tools when targeting female Ae. albopictus. They also challenge the assumption that standard attractant-baited BG-Sentinel 2 traps are universally effective across mosquito taxa and sexes.

In parallel, Cx. pipiens, although native to Europe, remains a key target for surveillance due to its role in transmitting West Nile virus and other encephalitic arboviruses, and it is consistently the most abundant species detected in entomological surveillance. Its widespread presence, behavioral plasticity, and potential for overlapping habitats with Aedes species necessitate its inclusion in integrated vector surveillance programs [20, 52]. Moreover, the species occurs as two ecologically distinct biotypes, pipiens and molestus and their hybrids, which differ in host preference, diapause behavior, and reproductive strategies, thereby influencing pathogen transmission dynamics [25, 31]. In the surveillance of Cx. pipiens in Europe, the two forms are rarely distinguished and identified only using molecular techniques. The ornithophilic pipiens form sustains enzootic cycles of avian viruses, while the anthropophilic and autogenous molestus form, along with hybrids, may act as bridge vectors, facilitating spillover to humans and other mammals [2, 56, 57]. Its ability to exploit a broad range of larval habitats, including organically enriched urban environments, further supports its dominance in both rural and urban settings. Consequently, surveillance of Cx. pipiens not only provides essential insights into arbovirus dynamics, but also complements monitoring of invasive Aedes species within integrated vector management frameworks across Europe [20].

BG-Sentinel 2 traps are an operational tool for estimating sterile-to-wild male ratios in Ae. albopictus SIT programs, as shown in a Tirana mark-release-recapture (MRR) study where they achieved similar recapture performance to human landing catches (HLC) with 2.36% vs 1.57% [55]. However, the results may vary under different conditions, so they should be locally validated. It is also recommended that BG-Sentinel 2 trap ratios be complemented with HLC and egg hatch rates to better evaluate field competitiveness and program impact. Additionally, the outcomes from the current study demonstrate no significant effect of attractants on all species male (Cx. pipiens and Aedes spp.). Conversely, females showed a statistically significant positive response to dry ice, while BG-Lure had a weaker, non-significant effect for Cx. pipiens. These results suggest the use of CO2-baited traps for monitoring female Cx. pipiens populations, particularly in the context of West Nile virus risk assessment.

The biodiversity indices further highlight ecological differences between the two study areas that may influence mosquito surveillance outcomes [6]. Although overall mosquito abundance was higher in Nicosia, the lower Shannon diversity (H′ = 0.729) and evenness (E = 0.453) indicate a community strongly dominated by Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus. In contrast, Larnaca exhibited slightly higher diversity (H′ = 0.798) and evenness (E = 0.496), reflecting a more balanced distribution of species, but with the presence of more Ae. aegypti than Ae. albopictus. Areas with lower evenness are typically characterized by dominance of a few highly adapted species, which may intensify interspecific competition and influence host-seeking behaviour, and trap encounter rates. Conversely, more even communities may reflect a broader range of ecological niches and host-use patterns, potentially affecting how different species respond to synthetic attractants [34].

In conclusion, our results suggest that attractant efficacy is both species- and sex-specific and can be modulated by environmental factors. Therefore, reliance on standardized trap configurations may compromise the sensitivity of surveillance efforts. This is particularly relevant for Ae. aegypti, which is currently under re-establishment in the Republic of Cyprus after decades of absence. Under such low-population conditions, the probability of detection remains limited. This outcome should not be recorded only as a constraint, since it may simulate an invasion at an early stage at PoEs, offering valuable information for the available surveillance and control tools under introduction scenarios [3]. Additionally, this is particularly important for evaluating the suppression and potential eradication efforts in SIT programs currently targeting Ae. albopictus, and in the future, potential expansion of Ae. aegypti across Europe and the Mediterranean region.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Evangelia Zavitsanou for her valuable support in map creation.

Funding

This study was supported by the projects: A) IDAlert (https://idalertproject.eu, accessed on September 18, 2024) with grant No. 101057554. IDAlert is part of the EU climate change and health cluster (https://climate-health.eu, accessed on September 18, 2024), B) the project “E4Warning: Eco-Epidemiological Intelligence for early Warning and response to mosquito-borne disease risk in Endemic and Emergence settings” (https://www.e4warning.eu) financed by Horizon Europe grant No. 01086640 and C) “A systematic surveillance of vector mosquitoes for the control of mosquito-borne diseases in the Region of Attica”, financed by the Region of Attica, Greece.

Research activities on the surveillance and control of Aedes vectors of arboviruses conducted by JB & RL were supported by the Interreg PRERISK_OI project funded by the Réunion Region and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under agreement 2024-1402-006701. Europe is committed to Réunion with INTERREG.

This study was also supported by resources provided through the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation project CYP5021 “Preventing the Spread of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti Mosquitoes”.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, nor in writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Author contribution statement

A.M. and J.B. planned the research; G.B., J.B., V.K., C.A., A.S.S., and A.M. designed the research; G.B., V.K., C.A., A.S.S., Y.P., K.P., G.P., M.V., M.S.S., and M.B. performed the research; R.L., G.B., M.N., and J.B. analyzed the data; G.B., M.N., V.K., C.A., A.S.S., M.S.S., and M.B. interpreted the data; G.B., M.V., C.A., A.S.S., and A.M. handled project administration; M.V. and A.M. acquired funding; G.B., J.B., A.M., and R.L. wrote the first version of the paper; All authors corrected the final version of the paper.

Supplementary material

Supplemental File: (Model coefficients) Mixed-effect “Poisson model of density of male Aedes aegypti” and Mixed-effect “Poisson model of density of female Aedes aegypti”. Access Supplementary Material

Table S1: Density and relative density of Aedes aegypti fitted with a Bayesian mixed-effect Poisson model, with data collected during a field trial with a Latin square design in Larnaca (Cyprus), October–November 2024. Access Supplementary Material

Table S2: Number of mosquitoes collected with each trap configuration in Larnaca and Nicosia, Cyprus. Access Supplementary Material

References

  1. Anderson JF, McKnight S, Ferrandino FJ. 2012. Aedes japonicus japonicus and associated woodland species attracted to Centers for Disease Control and prevention miniature light traps baited with carbon dioxide and the Traptech® mosquito lure. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 28, 184–191. [Google Scholar]
  2. Balatsos G, Beleri S, Tegos N, Bisia M, Karras V, Zavitsanou E, Papachristos DP, Papadopoulos NT, Michaelakis A, Patsoula E. 2024. Overwintering west nile virus in active Culex pipiens mosquito populations in Greece. Parasites & Vectors, 17, 286. [Google Scholar]
  3. Balatsos G, Blanco-Sierra L, Karras V, Puggioli A, Osório HC, Bellini R, Papachristos DP, Bouyer J, Bartumeus F, Papadopoulos NT, Michaelakis A. 2024. Residual longevity of recaptured sterile mosquitoes as a tool to understand field performance and reveal quality. Insects, 15, 826. [Google Scholar]
  4. Balatsos G, Karras V, Puggioli A, Balestrino F, Bellini R, Papachristos DP, Milonas PG, Papadopoulos NT, Malfacini M, Carrieri M, Kapranas A, Mamai W, Mastronikolos G, Lytra I, Bouyer J, Michaelakis A. 2024. Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) field trial targeting the suppression of Aedes albopictus in Greece. Parasite, 31, 17. [Google Scholar]
  5. Balatsos G, Puggioli A, Karras V, Lytra I, Mastronikolos G, Carrieri M, Papachristos DP, Malfacini M, Stefopoulou A, Ioannou CS, Balestrino F, Bouyer J, Petrić D, Pajović I, Kapranas A, Papadopoulos NT, Milonas PG, Bellini R, Michaelakis A. 2021. Reduction in egg fertility of Aedes albopictus mosquitoes in Greece following releases of imported sterile males. Insects, 12, 110. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bálint M, Domisch S, Engelhardt CHM, Haase P, Lehrian S, Sauer J, Theissinger K, Pauls SU, Nowak C. 2011. Cryptic biodiversity loss linked to global climate change. Nature Climate Change, 1, 313–318. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ballardini M, Ferretti S, Chiaranz G, Pautasso A, Riina MV, Triglia G, Verna F, Bellavia V, Radaelli MC, Berio E, Accorsi A, De Camilli M, Cardellino U, Fiorino N, Acutis PL, Casalone C, Mignone W. 2019. First report of the invasive mosquito Aedes koreicus (Diptera: Culicidae) and of its establishment in Liguria, northwest Italy. Parasites & Vectors, 12, 334. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrera R, Mackay AJ, Amador M. 2013. An improved trap to capture adult container-inhabiting mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 29, 358–368. [Google Scholar]
  9. Becker N, Petrić D, Zgomba M, Boase C, Madon MB, Dahl C, Kaiser A. 2020. Mosquitoes: Identification, Ecology and Control. Springer International Publishing: Cham. [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker N, Schön S, Klein A-M, Ferstl I, Kizgin A, Tannich E, Kuhn C, Pluskota B, Jöst A. 2017. First mass development of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) – its surveillance and control in Germany. Parasitology Research, 116, 847–858. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bidlingmayer WL, Day JF, Evans DG. 1995. Effect of wind velocity on suction trap catches of some Florida mosquitoes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 11, 295–301. [Google Scholar]
  12. Charnley GEC, Alcayna T, Almuedo-Riera A, Antoniou C, Badolo A, Bartumeus F, Boodram L-L, Bueno-Marí R, Codeço C, Coelho FC, Costa F, Cox H, Haddad N, Hamid NA, Kittayapong P, Korukluoğlu G, Michaelakis A, Maciel-de-Freitas R, Montalvo T, Muñoz J, Oliveras SS, Palmer JRB, Pizard CJB, Ribeiro GS, Lowe R. 2025. Strengthening resilience to emerging vector-borne diseases in Europe: lessons learnt from countries facing endemic transmission. Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 53, 101271. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cholvi M, Moretti R, Osório HC, L’Ambert G, Seixas G, Kavran M, Michaelakis A, Stephanou AS, Antoniou CP, Martinou AF, Roiz D, Calvitti M, Bueno-Marí R. 2026. Present and future of mosquito-borne disease control in europe with a specific focus on the Mediterranean. Insects, 17, 254. [Google Scholar]
  14. Claudel I, Brouazin R, Lancelot R, Gouagna L-C, Dupraz M, Baldet T, Bouyer J. 2022. Optimization of adult mosquito trap settings to monitor populations of Aedes and Culex mosquitoes, vectors of arboviruses in La Reunion. Scientific Reports, 12, 19544. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cunze S, Koch LK, Kochmann J, Klimpel S. 2016. Aedes albopictus and Aedes japonicus – two invasive mosquito species with different temperature niches in Europe. Parasites & Vectors, 9, 573. [Google Scholar]
  16. Darsie RF, Samanidou-Voyadjoglou A. 1997. Keys for the identification of the mosquitoes of Greece. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 13, 247–254. [Google Scholar]
  17. Denlinger DL, Armbruster PA. 2014. Mosquito Diapause. Annual Review of Entomology, 59, 73–93. [Google Scholar]
  18. Diniz DFA, Romão TP, Helvécio E, Carvalho-Leandro D de, Xavier M do N, Peixoto CA, Melo Neto OP de, Melo-Santos MAV de, Ayres CFJ. 2022. A comparative analysis of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti subjected to diapause-inducing conditions reveals conserved and divergent aspects associated with diapause, as well as novel genes associated with its onset. Current Research in Insect Science, 2, 100047. [Google Scholar]
  19. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 2012. Guidelines for the surveillance of invasive mosquitoes in Europe. Publications Office: LU. [Google Scholar]
  20. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). 2020. Culex pipiens – Factsheet for experts. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). [Google Scholar]
  21. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). 2025. Aedes albopictus – current known distribution: June 2025. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). [Google Scholar]
  22. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). 2025. Aedes aegypti - current known distribution: June 2025. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). [Google Scholar]
  23. Giannakopoulos C, Hadjinicolaou P, Kostopoulou E, Varotsos KV, Zerefos C. 2010. Precipitation and temperature regime over Cyprus as a result of global climate change. Advances in Geosciences, 23, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  24. Giunti G, Becker N, Benelli G. 2023. Invasive mosquito vectors in Europe: From bioecology to surveillance and management. Acta Tropica, 239, 106832. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gutiérrez-López R, Yan J, Gangoso L, Soriguer R, Figuerola J, Puente JM la. 2024. Are the Culex pipiens biotypes pipiens, molestus and their hybrids competent vectors of avian Plasmodium? PLoS ONE, 19, e0314633. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kavran M, Konjević A, Petrić D, Ćupina AI. 2023. The introduction and establishment of four invasive insect species in Serbia. Insects, 14, 728. [Google Scholar]
  27. Koban MB, Kampen H, Scheuch DE, Frueh L, Kuhlisch C, Janssen N, Steidle JLM, Schaub GA, Werner D. 2019. The Asian bush mosquito Aedes japonicus japonicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Europe, 17 years after its first detection, with a focus on monitoring methods. Parasites & Vectors, 12, 109. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ, Shearer FM, Barker CM, Moore CG, Carvalho RG, Coelho GE, Van Bortel W, Hendrickx G, Schaffner F, Elyazar IR, Teng H-J, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Pigott DM, Scott TW, Smith DL, Wint GW, Golding N, Hay SI. 2015. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. eLife, 4, e08347. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Gilbert M, Pigott DM, Yi D, Johnson K, Earl L, Marczak LB, Shirude S, Davis Weaver N, Bisanzio D, Perkins TA, Lai S, Lu X, Jones P, Coelho GE, Carvalho RG, Van Bortel W, Marsboom C, Hendrickx G, Schaffner F, Moore CG, Nax HH, Bengtsson L, Wetter E, Tatem AJ, Brownstein JS, Smith DL, Lambrechts L, Cauchemez S, Linard C, Faria NR, Pybus OG, Scott TW, Liu Q, Yu H, Wint GRW, Hay SI, Golding N. 2019. Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Nature Microbiology, 4, 854–863. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Le Goff G, Damiens D, Ruttee A-H, Payet L, Lebon C, Dehecq J-S, Geier M, Gouagna L-C. 2017. Comparison of efficiency of BG-Sentinel traps baited with mice, mouse-litter, and CO2 lures for field sampling of male and female Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Insects, 8, 95. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leisnham PT, LaDeau SL, Saunders MEM, Villena OC. 2021. Condition-specific competitive effects of the invasive mosquito Aedes albopictus on the resident Culex pipiens among different urban container habitats may explain their coexistence in the field. Insects, 12, 993. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lühken R, Brattig N, Becker N. 2023. Introduction of invasive mosquito species into Europe and prospects for arbovirus transmission and vector control in an era of globalization. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 12, 109. [Google Scholar]
  33. Miranda MÁ, Barceló C, Arnoldi D, Augsten X, Bakran-Lebl K, Balatsos G, Bengoa M, Bindler P, Boršová K, Bourquia M, Bravo-Barriga D, Čabanová V, Caputo B, Christou M, Delacour S, Eritja R, Fassi-Fihri O, Ferraguti M, Flacio E, Frontera E, Fuehrer H-P, García-Pérez AL, Georgiades P, Gewehr S, Goiri F, González MA, Gschwind M, Gutiérrez-López R, Horváth C, Ibáñez-Justicia A, Jani V, Kadriaj P, Kalan K, Kavran M, Klobucar A, Kurucz K, Lucientes J, Lühken R, Magallanes S, Marini G, Martinou AF, Michelutti A, Mihalca AD, Montalvo T, Montarsi F, Mourelatos S, Muja-Bajraktari N, Müller P, Notarides G, Osório HC, Oteo JA, Oter K, Pajović I, Palmer JRB, Petrinic S, Răileanu C, Ries C, Rogozi E, Ruiz-Arrondo I, Sanpera-Calbet I, Sekulić N, Sevim K, Sherifi K, Silaghi C, Silva M, Sokolovska N, Soltész Z, Sulesco T, Šušnjar J, Teekema S, Valsecchi A, Vasquez MI, Velo E, Michaelakis A, Wint W, Petrić D, Schaffner F, Torre A della, Suchentrunk C, Zechmeister T, Gruber E, Orehounig G, Altgayer G, Lex F, Lebl I, Zezula D, Petermann JS, Oberleitner F, Zittra C, Brenner T, Zimmermann K, Klocker L, Eigner B, Wortha L, Pree S, Jäger S, Schwerte T, Wieser C, Heimburg H, Gunczy J, Paill W, Jerrentrup H, Pree S, Daroglou E, Eigner B, Shahi-Barogh B, Wortha LN, Svitok M, Svitková I, Oboňa J, Barbušinová E, Micocci M, Albani M, Serini P, Cobre P, Canals M, Bellés R, Erguler K, Neira M, Kelemenis N, Vlachos G, Karagiannis A, Barandika JF, Cevidanes A, Vázquez P, Stroo A, Horvat Z, Stranj M, Ignjatović-Ćupina A, Dondur D, Bogdanović S, Srdić V, Francuski Z, Žunić A, Posavec MC, Poje D, Pismarovic T, Markó G, Inama E, Manica M, Rizzoli A, Athanasiou K, Muja A, Qollaku H, Amaro F, Guerreiro N, Alten B, Gunay F, Eryigit OY, Yildirim B, Yilmaz SO, Pehlivan S, Neumann U, Tauchmann O, Vasic A, Busmachiu G, Lange U, Schmidt-Chanasit J, Angelidou I, Panayiotou C, Konstantinou I, Sino G, Mema H, Veliko A, Kollia D, Mourafetis F, Karras V, Bisia M, Bender C, AIM-COST/AIM-Surv C. 2022. AIMSurv: First pan-European harmonized surveillance of Aedes invasive mosquito species of relevance for human vector-borne diseases. GigaByte, 2022, gigabyte57. [Google Scholar]
  34. Möhlmann TWR, Wennergren U, Tälle M, Favia G, Damiani C, Bracchetti L, Koenraadt CJM. 2017. Community analysis of the abundance and diversity of mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) in three European countries at different latitudes. Parasites & Vectors, 10, 510. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mouchtouri B, Michaelakis A, Ibáñez-Justicia A, Bellini R, Kourentis L, Christoforidou E, Anagnostopoulos L, Plenge-Bönig A, Dirksen-Fischer M, Militzer K, Velayudhan R, Hadjichristodoulou C. 2022. Recommendations for standard operating procedures (SOPS) development for vector (mosquito) surveillance and control activities at ports and airports. EU Healthy Gateways (2022). [Google Scholar]
  36. Müller P, Engeler L, Vavassori L, Suter T, Guidi V, Gschwind M, Tonolla M, Flacio E. 2020. Surveillance of invasive Aedes mosquitoes along Swiss traffic axes reveals different dispersal modes for Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 14, e0008705. [Google Scholar]
  37. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin P, O’Hara R, Simpson G, Solymos P, Stevens M, Wagner H. 2013. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version. 2.0-10. CRAN. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pabst R, Sousa CA, Essl F, García-Rodríguez A, Liu D, Lenzner B, Schertler A, Zêzere JL, Capinha C. 2025. Global invasion patterns and dynamics of disease vector mosquitoes. Nature Communications, 16, 9127. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pfitzner WP, Lehner A, Hoffmann D, Czajka C, Becker N. 2018. First record and morphological characterization of an established population of Aedes (Hulecoeteomyia) koreicus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Germany. Parasites & Vectors, 11, 662. [Google Scholar]
  40. Piccinno R, Fiorenza G, Vasquez MI, Bouyer J, Notarides G, Gomulski LM, Meletiou S, Akiner M, Michaelakis A, Forneris F, Maga G, Gasperi G, Malacrida AR. 2025. On the tracks of an uninvited guest, the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus in Cyprus. Parasites & Vectors, 18, 39. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pielou EC. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131–144. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pombi M, Jacobs F, Verhulst NO, Caputo B, Torre A della, Takken W. 2014. Field evaluation of a novel synthetic odour blend and of the synergistic role of carbon dioxide for sampling host-seeking Aedes albopictus adults in Rome, Italy, Parasites & Vectors, 7, 580. [Google Scholar]
  43. R Core Team. 2025. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  44. Roiz D, Duperier S, Roussel M, Boussès P, Fontenille D, Simard F, Paupy C. 2016. Trapping the tiger: Efficacy of the Novel BG-Sentinel 2 with several attractants and carbon dioxide for collecting Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Southern France. Journal of Medical Entomology, 53, 460–465. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rosen L. 1986. Dengue in Greece in 1927 and 1928 and the pathogenesis of dengue hemorrhagic fever: New data and a different conclusion. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 35, 642–653. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rue H, Riebler A, Sørbye SH, Illian JB, Simpson DP, Lindgren FK. 2017. Bayesian computing with INLA: A Review. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4, 395–421. [Google Scholar]
  47. Santé publique France (SPF) 2024. Chikungunya, dengue et zika – Données de la surveillance renforcée en France hexagonale 2024. Santé Publique France. [Google Scholar]
  48. Scholte E-J, Jacobs F, Linton Y-M, Dijkstra E, Fransen J, Takken W. 2007. First record of Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus in the Netherlands. European Mosquito Bulletin, 22, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  49. Seixas G, Salgueiro P, Bronzato-Badial A, Gonçalves Y, Reyes-Lugo M, Gordicho V, Ribolla P, Viveiros B, Silva AC, Pinto J, Sousa CA. 2019. Origin and expansion of the mosquito Aedes aegypti in Madeira Island (Portugal). Scientific Reports, 9, 2241. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sousa CA, Clairouin M, Seixas G, Viveiros B, Novo MT, Silva AC, Escoval MT, Economopoulou A. 2012. Ongoing outbreak of dengue type 1 in the Autonomous Region of Madeira, Portugal: preliminary report. Eurosurveillance, 17, 20333. [Google Scholar]
  51. Staunton KM, Crawford JE, Cornel D, Yeeles P, Desnoyer M, Livni J, Holeman J, Mulligan FS, Snoad N, Ritchie SA. 2020. Environmental influences on Aedes aegypti catches in Biogents Sentinel traps during a Californian “rear and release” program: Implications for designing surveillance programs. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 14, e0008367. [Google Scholar]
  52. Stiles PC, Balatsos G, Liyanage P, Baron JN, Sakellariou Sofianou M, Bisia M, Karras V, Bärnighausen T, Patsoula E, Rocklöv J, Michaelakis A, Bunker A. 2025. Three-year assessment of integrated vector management in Attica, Greece: results from surveillance and control activities. Communications Biology, 8, 1533. [Google Scholar]
  53. Swan T, Russell TL, Staunton KM, Field MA, Ritchie SA, Burkot TR. 2022. A literature review of dispersal pathways of Aedes albopictus across different spatial scales: implications for vector surveillance. Parasites & Vectors, 15, 303. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vasquez MI, Notarides G, Meletiou S, Patsoula E, Kavran M, Michaelakis A, Bellini R, Toumazi T, Bouyer J, Petrić D. 2023. Two invasions at once: update on the introduction of the invasive species Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Cyprus – a call for action in Europe. Parasite, 30, 41. [Google Scholar]
  55. Velo E, Balestrino F, Kadriaj P, Carvalho DO, Dicko A, Bellini R, Puggioli A, Petrić D, Michaelakis A, Schaffner F, Almenar D, Pajovic I, Beqirllari A, Ali M, Sino G, Rogozi E, Jani V, Nikolla A, Porja T, Goga T, Fălcuă E, Kavran M, Pudar D, Mikov O, Ivanova-Aleksandrova N, Cvetkovikj A, Akıner MM, Mikovic R, Tafaj L, Bino S, Bouyer J, Mamai W. 2022. A Mark-release-recapture study to estimate field performance of imported radio-sterilized male Aedes albopictus in Albania. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10, 833698. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vogels CB, Göertz GP, Pijlman GP, Koenraadt CJ. 2017. Vector competence of European mosquitoes for West Nile virus. Emerging Microbes & Infections, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vogels CBF, Fros JJ, Göertz GP, Pijlman GP, Koenraadt CJM. 2016. Vector competence of northern European Culex pipiens biotypes and hybrids for West Nile virus is differentially affected by temperature. Parasites & Vectors, 9, 393. [Google Scholar]
  58. Westby KM, Medley KA. 2020. Cold Nights, City Lights: Artificial light at night reduces photoperiodically induced diapause in urban and rural populations of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 57, 1694–1699. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilke ABB, Benelli G, Beier JC. 2020. Beyond frontiers: On invasive alien mosquito species in America and Europe. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 14, e0007864. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilke ABB, Carvajal A, Medina J, Anderson M, Nieves VJ, Ramirez M, Vasquez C, Petrie W, Cardenas G, Beier JC. 2019. Assessment of the effectiveness of BG-Sentinel traps baited with CO2 and BG-Lure for the surveillance of vector mosquitoes in Miami-Dade County, Florida, PLoS ONE, 14, e0212688. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wint W, Jones P, Kraemer M, Alexander N, Schaffner F. 2022. Past, present and future distribution of the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti: The European paradox. Science of the Total Environment, 847, 157566. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Balatsos G, Karras V, Neira M, Lancelot R, Antoniou C, Stephanou AS, Pigkeridis Y, Papazacharia K, Papazacharia G, Violaris M, Sofianou MS, Bisia M, Bouyer J & Michaelakis A. 2026. Evaluating BG-Sentinel trap setting as an effective surveillance tool for mosquito vectors in the Republic of Cyprus. Parasite 33, 31. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2026033.

All Tables

Table 1

Descriptions of BG-Sentinel trap configurations tested in the field experiment.

In the text
Table 2

Total number of mosquitoes captured per species in each study area (Nicosia and Larnaca) from October 20 to November 14, 2024 (Cx. = Culex, Ae. = Aedes, Cs. = Culiseta).

In the text

All Figures

Thumbnail: Figure 1 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 1

Map of the Republic of Cyprus showing the study regions and sampling sites. Each region (Nicosia and Larnaca) included two sampling sites, where four trap configurations were deployed at each site. Panels A and B show the locations and distribution of sampling points in Nicosia, specifically in the municipalities of Nicosia and Strovolos. Panels C and D show the locations and distribution of sampling points in Larnaca, specifically in the municipalities of Dromolaxia–Meneou and Larnaca.
In the text
Thumbnail: Figure 2 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 2

Model-estimated density and relative density of Aedes aegypti fitted with a Bayesian Poisson model with data collected during a field trial with a Latin square design in Larnaca (Cyprus), October–November 2024 (n = 8 trapping sessions for each grey dot). Separate models were fitted for males and females. Density represents the posterior mean expected number of mosquitoes captured per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. Relative density represents the ratio of this expected count to that of the control group (no dry ice, no BG-Lure), which was set to 1. Red segments indicate 95% CI. For relative density, intervals crossing the vertical dashed red line at 1 indicate that the null hypothesis of no difference from the control cannot be rejected (α = 0.05).
In the text
Thumbnail: Figure 3 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 3

Model-estimated density and relative density of Aedes albopictus fitted with a Bayesian mixed-effect Poisson model (males), or a Bayesian marginal negative binomial model (females) of attractiveness implemented in a field trial with a Latin square design in Nicosia (Cyprus), October–November 2024 (n = 8 trapping sessions for each combination of sex, dry ice, and lure). Separate models were fitted for males and females. Density represents the posterior mean expected number of mosquitoes captured per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. Relative density represents the ratio of this expected count to that of the control group (no dry ice, no BG-Lure), which was set to 1. Red segments indicate 95% CI. For relative density, intervals crossing the vertical dashed red line at 1 indicate that the null hypothesis of no difference from the control cannot be rejected (α = 0.05).
In the text
Thumbnail: Figure 4 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 4

Density and relative density of Cx. pipiens fitted with a Bayesian mixed-effect Poisson model of BG-Sentinel 2 trap attractiveness on data collected during a field trial with a Latin square design in Larnaca and Nicosia (Cyprus), October–November 2024 (n = 8 trapping sessions for each combination of sex, dry ice, and lure). Separate models were fitted for males and females. Density represents the posterior mean expected number of mosquitoes captured per BG-Sentinel 2 trap per 24-hour trapping session. Relative density represents the ratio of this expected count to that of the control group (no dry ice, no BG-Lure), which was set to 1. Red segments indicate 95% CI. For relative density, intervals crossing the vertical dashed red line at 1 indicate that the null hypothesis of no difference from the control cannot be rejected (α = 0.05).
In the text
Thumbnail: Figure 5 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 5

Environmental conditions in Nicosia and Larnaca during the sampling period. The graph shows the daily average temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) recorded at the Athalassa and Larnaca airport, Automatic Weather Station. In Nicosia, the temperatures remained relatively stable between 20 and 24 °C, while humidity ranged from 40% to 80%. In Larnaca, the temperatures remained stable at approximately 20 °C, while humidity ranged from 40% to 80%.
In the text
Thumbnail: Figure 6 Refer to the following caption and surrounding text. Figure 6

Wind conditions in Nicosia and Larnaca during the sampling period. The graph shows the recorded wind speeds, ranging from 1 Bft (average 0.9 m/s) to almost 2 Bft (average 2.9 m/s), measured at the Athalassa Automatic Weather Station. In Larnaca, the recorded wind speeds, which exhibited greater variation than in Nicosia, reaching up to 4 Bft (average 5.6 m/s), were measured at the Larnaca Airport Automatic Weather Station.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.