Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41285970›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

First characterization of mosquito vector abundance and diversity on commercial swine farms in the United States.

Stephen Edache, David Edache, Lauryn Mauler, Ashley Thackrah, Vanessa Horton, Christy Hanthorn, Andrea Dixon, Dana Mitzel, Lee W Cohnstaedt, Natalia Cernicchiaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Stephen EdacheCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
David EdacheCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Lauryn MaulerCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Ashley ThackrahCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Vanessa HortonCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Christy HanthornCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Andrea DixonCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
Dana MitzelForeign Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, National Bio and Agro- Defense Facility, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Lee W CohnstaedtForeign Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, National Bio and Agro- Defense Facility, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, Manhattan, KS, USA. lee.cohnstaedt@usda.gov.
Natalia CernicchiaroCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, 332 Coles Hall, 1620 Denison Avenue, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA. ncernic@vet.k-state.edu.

Funding

United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Services (USDA ARS) Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement 58-3020-9-022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study is the first in the United States to characterize mosquito vector abundance and diversity on commercial swine farms. Between June and October 2024, bi-weekly mosquito sampling was conducted on ten farms (five sow farms and five wean-to-market farms (WTM)) in southeast Iowa using BG-Pro light traps (Biogents AG, Regensburg, Germany). Traps were placed both outdoors, near water bodies (lagoons and ponds) and vegetation (crop fields, trees, shrubs, and thick grasses), and indoors (barns), trapping a total of 11,343 female mosquitoes. Overall, 55.8% were trapped on sow farms and 44.2% on WTM farms. Overall female abundance varied significantly across time periods (P < 0.01), peaking in July and August. Outdoor female abundance was significantly higher than indoors on sow farms (P < 0.01), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed on WTM farms. Nineteen mosquito species were identified, predominantly belonging to three genera: Culex, Aedes, and Anopheles, with significant differences in community composition across habitats, as indicated by alpha and beta diversity metrics (P < 0.05). These findings provide a critical baseline for understanding vector dynamics in swine production systems and highlight the need for sustained mosquito surveillance to inform arbovirus risk mitigation strategies.

Indexed as

CulicidaeFarmsMosquito VectorsAnimalsBiodiversityCulexEcosystemFemaleIowaSwineUnited StatesAbundanceArbovirusesMosquitoesSpecies diversitySwine

Identifiers

PMID41285970
PMCPMC12644552

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.