FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Medical and veterinary entomology2025; doi: 10.1111/mve.12802

Host-feeding preferences of Culex pipiens and its potential significance for flavivirus transmission in the Camargue, France.

Abstract: The spread of the West Nile (WNV) and Usutu (USUV) flaviviruses in Europe in recent decades highlights the urgent need to understand the transmission networks of these pathogens as a basis for effective decision-making. These viruses are part of a complex disease cycle that involves birds as principal hosts and humans and horses as dead-end hosts. Our study aims to uncover the intricate relationships between the main mosquito vector of these viruses, Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) and its feeding preferences based on the forage ratio among several host species, primarily birds in a land-use gradient. We estimated the bird host potential to act as a host for flavivirus, the reservoir capacity index, based on forage ratios and potential host competence based on molecular prevalence. We sampled mosquitoes and, at the same time, conducted bird censuses in the Camargue region in southern France, where co-circulation of these viruses has been reported. Several localities were sampled along a land-use gradient in peri-urban, agricultural and natural areas from May to November 2021. We identified 55 vertebrate species in 110 engorged Cx. pipiens by PCR amplification and sequencing of mitochondrial 12S and 16S Ribosomal DNA genes. Culex pipiens feeds primarily on 51 bird species and secondarily on two mammals, one amphibian and one reptile. Based on forage ratios, we found a preference of Cx. pipiens in the Camargue for the order Passeriformes and, more specifically, for Columba livia domestica L. (Columbiformes: Columbidae) in agricultural areas, and for Passer domesticus/montanus L. (Passeriformes: Passeridae), in agricultural and peri-urban areas. The natural habitats had significantly higher forage ratio values than agricultural and peri-urban areas. We suggest that certain key species, such as Passer sp., Columba livia and Turdus sp., might be potentially considered locally relevant hosts for transmission in this area, as they are important for mosquito feeding and also potentially important hosts for flavivirus amplification. These data will be beneficial in understanding host-vector interactions and the relationships between bird communities, mosquito feeding preferences and emerging mosquito-borne diseases.
© 2025 The Author(s). Medical and Veterinary Entomology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Entomological Society.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-03-21 PubMed ID: 40118784DOI: 10.1111/mve.12802Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study examined which animals Culex pipiens mosquitoes feed on across natural, agricultural, and peri-urban habitats in southern France and what that implies for local West Nile and Usutu virus transmission. By matching DNA from mosquito blood meals to bird counts, the authors identified preferred hosts and highlighted common birds that may disproportionately amplify these viruses.

What the researchers asked and why it matters

  • Question: Which hosts does Culex pipiens feed on in the Camargue, how do preferences vary by land use, and which bird species might most contribute to West Nile and Usutu virus transmission?
  • Importance: West Nile virus (WNV) and Usutu virus (USUV) circulate in bird–mosquito cycles; humans and horses are dead-end hosts with little onward transmission. Knowing which birds mosquitoes prefer helps pinpoint where and when amplification and spillover risks are highest.
  • Gap addressed: Many studies report what hosts are fed upon, but fewer relate feeding to host availability across habitats to quantify true preference and its consequences for transmission potential.

Study setting and design

  • Location: Camargue, southern France, a region with documented co-circulation of WNV and USUV.
  • Timeframe: May to November 2021, spanning much of the mosquito and bird breeding and migration season.
  • Land-use gradient: Multiple localities categorized as peri-urban, agricultural, or natural habitats.
  • Concurrent data: Mosquito collections were paired with bird censuses conducted at the same time and locations to measure host availability.

Key methods and metrics

  • Mosquito sampling and blood-meal identification:
    • Target vector: Culex pipiens (engorged females).
    • Sample size: 110 blood-fed mosquitoes with identifiable meals.
    • Laboratory approach: PCR amplification and sequencing of host mitochondrial 12S and 16S rDNA to assign vertebrate host species.
    • Host diversity detected: 55 vertebrate species total; predominantly birds (51 species) with occasional mammals (2 species), one amphibian, and one reptile.
  • Bird community measurements:
    • Standardized bird counts at collection sites provided denominators for “availability” of each species or group.
  • Forage ratio (feeding preference index):
    • Definition: The proportion of blood meals from a host (or host group) divided by that host’s proportion in the local bird community.
    • Interpretation: Values greater than 1 indicate preference; values less than 1 indicate avoidance relative to availability.
    • Use: Calculated at species and higher taxonomic levels and compared across habitat types.
  • Reservoir capacity index (potential host importance):
    • Concept: Integrates how often mosquitoes feed on a host (preference) with how likely that host is to be infected and infectious (competence) to estimate its contribution to virus amplification.
    • Operationalization here: Combined forage ratios with a proxy for host competence based on molecular prevalence (detection of flavivirus in birds at the taxon level), yielding a relative index of potential contribution.

Main findings

  • Strong ornithophily:
    • Culex pipiens fed overwhelmingly on birds (51 species), with only rare meals from mammals, amphibians, and reptiles.
  • Taxonomic preferences:
    • Overall preference for Passeriformes (perching birds), indicating targeted feeding beyond simple availability.
  • Key species by habitat:
    • Agricultural areas: Elevated preference for Columba livia domestica (feral/domestic pigeon).
    • Agricultural and peri-urban areas: Elevated preference for Passer domesticus/montanus (house or tree sparrow; grouped due to indistinguishable markers).
    • Natural habitats: Higher forage ratio values overall than in agricultural and peri-urban sites, indicating stronger selection of certain wild bird hosts in these areas.
  • Candidate amplifier hosts in this landscape:
    • Passer spp., Columba livia, and Turdus spp. emerged as locally relevant hosts given their feeding attractiveness and potential competence signal, making them plausible contributors to WNV/USUV amplification.

How to interpret the results for WNV and USUV transmission

  • Amplification within bird communities:
    • Because Cx. pipiens is largely bird-biting here, transmission is likely sustained within avian networks, especially where preferred, abundant passerines and pigeons occur.
    • Higher forage ratios in natural habitats suggest strong local amplification in wild bird assemblages, potentially seeding infection across the region.
  • Spillover potential to humans and horses:
    • Preference for synanthropic birds (sparrows, pigeons) in agricultural and peri-urban settings may elevate virus activity near people and horses, increasing the chance of incidental, dead-end infections.
  • Reservoir capacity perspective:
    • Hosts that are both frequently fed upon and competent can disproportionately drive virus circulation; the highlighted taxa fit this profile locally and warrant targeted surveillance.

Strengths of the study

  • Concurrent measurement of host use and host availability enables true preference estimates rather than raw feeding proportions.
  • Molecular identification of blood meals increases accuracy of host assignment across diverse vertebrates.
  • Sampling across a land-use gradient reveals how habitat context structures mosquito–host interactions relevant to transmission risk.

Limitations to keep in mind

  • Sample size of blood meals (n = 110) is modest relative to the number of detected host species, which can widen uncertainty for species-specific forage ratios.
  • Grouping of closely related taxa (e.g., Passer domesticus/montanus) may mask species-level differences in preference or competence.
  • Forage ratios depend on accurate, contemporaneous bird counts; detectability differences among species could bias availability estimates.
  • Using molecular prevalence as a proxy for host competence captures exposure/infection but not necessarily infectiousness (viremia magnitude and duration).
  • Findings are from a single season and region; annual variation in bird communities, mosquito abundance, and viral circulation could shift preferences and host importance.
  • Potential heterogeneity within Culex pipiens complex (e.g., behaviorally distinct biotypes) was not the focus and could influence host choice in other contexts.

Implications for surveillance and control

  • Surveillance:
    • Prioritize monitoring of Passer spp., Columba livia, and Turdus spp. for WNV/USUV infection, especially in natural habitats and at urban–rural interfaces.
    • Integrate bird census data with mosquito infection rates to refine early-warning systems by habitat type.
  • Vector and habitat management:
    • Target mosquito control around roosts or congregation sites of preferred hosts during peak season.
    • Reduce breeding sites near agricultural and peri-urban areas where synanthropic birds are abundant to lower bridge-spillover opportunity.
  • Risk communication:
    • Focus public and veterinary advisories seasonally and spatially where preferred host birds and Cx. pipiens activity co-occur.

Future directions

  • Multi-year, seasonal analyses to capture interannual variability in preferences and virus circulation.
  • Experimental and field-based estimates of host competence for locally abundant Passer, Columba, and Turdus species to refine reservoir capacity indices.
  • Higher-resolution assignment of Culex pipiens biotypes and their feeding behaviors to clarify vector heterogeneity.
  • Integration of roosting behavior, movement ecology of key birds, and fine-scale mosquito abundance to model transmission hotspots.
  • Evaluation of how environmental drivers (e.g., rainfall, temperature, water management) modulate host availability, mosquito feeding, and viral activity across habitats.

Take-home points

  • Culex pipiens in the Camargue feeds mainly on birds, showing strong preference for Passeriformes and, contextually, pigeons and sparrows in human-modified landscapes.
  • Natural habitats exhibit higher feeding selectivity, implying robust within-bird amplification; peri-urban and agricultural sites may facilitate spillover via synanthropic bird communities.
  • A small set of common, preferred birds likely plays an outsized role in local WNV/USUV dynamics, offering concrete targets for surveillance and control.

Cite This Article

APA
Rodríguez-Valencia V, Olive MM, Le Goff G, Faisse M, Bourel M, L'Ambert G, Vollot B, Tolsá-García MJ, Paupy C, Roiz D. (2025). Host-feeding preferences of Culex pipiens and its potential significance for flavivirus transmission in the Camargue, France. Med Vet Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.12802

Publication

Medical and veterinary entomology
ISSN: 1365-2915
NlmUniqueID: 8708682
Country: England
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Rodríguez-Valencia, Víctor
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
  • International Joint Laboratory ELDORADO, IRD/UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.
Olive, Marie-Marie
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
  • ASTRE, Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Montpellier, France.
Le Goff, Gilbert
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Faisse, Marine
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Bourel, Marie
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
L'Ambert, Grégory
  • Entente interdépartementale pour la démoustication du littoral méditerranéen (EID Méditerranée), Montpellier, France.
Vollot, Benjamin
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Tolsá-García, María José
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
  • International Joint Laboratory ELDORADO, IRD/UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.
Paupy, Christophe
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Roiz, David
  • MIVEGEC, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
  • International Joint Laboratory ELDORADO, IRD/UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.

Grant Funding

  • 2018-2019 Biodiversa joint call for research proposals under the Biodiversa 3ERA-net COFUND programme / Biodiversa
  • ANR-19-EB14-0001-04 / Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • International doctoral scholarship / Conahcyt

References

This article includes 55 references
  1. Angeloni G, Bertola M, Lazzaro E, Morini M, Masi G, Sinigaglia A. Epidemiology, surveillance, and diagnosis of Usutu virus infection in the EU/EEA, 2012 to 2021. Eurosurveillance 28(33), 2‐10.
    doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.es.2023.28.33.2200929google scholar: lookup
  2. Apperson CS, Harrison BA, Unnasch TR, Hassan HK, Irby WS, Savage HM. Host‐feeding habits of Culex and other mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in the borough of Queens in New York City, with characters and techniques for identification of Culex mosquitoes. Journal of Medical Entomology 39(5), 777–785.
    doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-39.5.777google scholar: lookup
  3. Ashfaq M, Hebert PDN, Mirza JH, Khan AM, Zafar Y, Mirza MS. Analyzing mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) diversity in Pakistan by DNA barcoding. PLoS One 9(5), e97268.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097268google scholar: lookup
  4. Bahuon C, Marcillaud-Pitel C, Bournez L, Leblond A, Beck C, Hars J, Leparc-Goffart I, L’Ambert G, Paty MC, Cavalerie L, Daix C, Tritz P, Durand B, Zientara S, Lecollinet S. West Nile virus epizootics in the Camargue (France) in 2015 and reinforcement of surveillance and control networks: ‐EN‐ ‐FR‐ Épizootie due au virus de West Nile survenue en Camargue (France) en 2015 et renforcement des réseaux de surveillance et de contrôle ‐ES‐ Epizootia causada por el virus West Nile en la Camarga (Francia) en 2015 y refuerzo de las redes de vigilancia y control. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 35(3), 811–824.
  5. Balenghien T, Fouque F, Sabatier P, Bicout DJ. Horse‐, bird‐, and human‐seeking behavior and seasonal abundance of mosquitoes in a West Nile virus focus of southern France. Journal of Medical Entomology 43(5), 936–946.
  6. Becker N, Petrić D, Zgomba M, Boase C, Madon M, Dahl C. Key to female mosquitoes. In: En Becker, N., Petric, D., Zgomba, M., Boase, C., Madon, M., Dahl, C. et al. (Eds.) Mosquitoes and their control. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 91–111.
    doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92874-4_6google scholar: lookup
  7. Bournez L, Umhang G, Faure E, Boucher JM, Boué F, Jourdain E. Exposure of wild ungulates to the Usutu and tick‐borne encephalitis viruses in France in 2009–2014: evidence of undetected Flavivirus circulation a decade ago. Viruses 12(1), 10.
    doi: 10.3390/v12010010google scholar: lookup
  8. Cailly P, Balenghien T, Ezanno P, Fontenille D, Toty C, Tran A. Role of the repartition of wetland breeding sites on the spatial distribution of anopheles and Culex, human disease vectors in southern France. Parasites & Vectors 4(1), 65.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-65google scholar: lookup
  9. Chaves LF, Harrington LC, Keogh CL, Nguyen AM, Kitron UD. Blood feeding patterns of mosquitoes: random or structured?. Frontiers in Zoology 7(1), 3.
    doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-7-3google scholar: lookup
  10. Clements AN. The biology of mosquitoes. In: Sensory reception and behaviour. (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2), Vol. 2. England: Digital Library.
    doi: 10.1079/9780851993133.0000google scholar: lookup
  11. Constant O, Bollore K, Clé M, Barthelemy J, Foulongne V, Chenet B. Evidence of exposure to USUV and WNV in zoo animals in France. Pathogens 9(12), 1005.
    doi: 10.3390/pathogens9121005google scholar: lookup
  12. Detinova TS, Beklemishev W, Bertram D. Age‐grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance with special reference to some vectors of malaria. Switzerland: World Health Organization.
  13. Diagne C, Turbelin AJ, Moodley D, Novoa A, Leroy B, Angulo E. The economic costs of biological invasions in Africa: a growing but neglected threat?. NeoBiota 67, 11–51.
    doi: 10.3897/neobiota.67.59132google scholar: lookup
  14. Eiden M, Gil P, Ziegler U, Rakotoarivony I, Marie A, Frances B. Emergence of two Usutu virus lineages in Culex pipiens mosquitoes in the Camargue, France, 2015. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 61, 151–154.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2018.03.020google scholar: lookup
  15. Estep LK, McClure CJW, Burkett-Cadena ND, Hassan HK, Unnasch TR, Hill GE. Developing models for the forage ratios of Culiseta melanura and Culex erraticus using species characteristics for avian hosts. Journal of Medical Entomology 49(2), 378–387.
    doi: 10.1603/me11155google scholar: lookup
  16. Fikrig K, Harrington LC. Understanding and interpreting mosquito blood feeding studies: the case of Aedes albopictus. Trends in Parasitology 37(11), 959–975.
  17. Franklinos LHV, Jones KE, Redding DW, Abubakar I. The effect of global change on mosquito‐borne disease. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 19(9), e302‐e312.
    doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30161-6google scholar: lookup
  18. Goldberg TL, Ruiz MO, Hamer GL, Brawn JD, Kitron UD, Hayes DB. Host selection by Culex pipiens mosquitoes and West Nile virus amplification. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 80(2), 268–278.
    doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2009.80.268google scholar: lookup
  19. Griep JS, Grant E, Pilgrim J, Riabinina O, Baylis M, Wardeh M. Meta‐analyses of Culex blood‐meals indicates strong regional effect on feeding patterns. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 19(1), e0012245.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012245google scholar: lookup
  20. Gunathilaka N, Denipitiya T, Hapugoda M, Abeyewickreme W, Wickremasinghe R. Determination of the foraging behaviour and blood meal source of malaria vector mosquitoes in Trincomalee District of Sri Lanka using a multiplex real time polymerase chain reaction assay. Malaria Journal 15(1), 242.
    doi: 10.1186/s12936-016-1279-5google scholar: lookup
  21. Haba Y, McBride L. Origin and status of Culex pipiens mosquito ecotypes. Current Biology 32(5), R237–R246.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.062google scholar: lookup
  22. Huang YJ, Higgs S, Horne K, Vanlandingham D. Flavivirus‐mosquito interactions. Viruses 6(11), 4703–4730.
    doi: 10.3390/v6114703google scholar: lookup
  23. Janousek WM, Marra PP, Kilpatrick A. Avian roosting behavior influences vector‐host interactions for West Nile virus hosts. Parasites & Vectors 7(1), 399.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-399google scholar: lookup
  24. Jourdain E, Toussaint Y, Leblond A, Bicout DJ, Sabatier P, Gauthier-Clerc M. Bird species potentially involved in introduction, amplification, and spread of West Nile virus in a Mediterranean wetland, the Camargue (southern France). Vector‐Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 7(1), 15–33.
    doi: 10.1089/vbz.2006.054google scholar: lookup
  25. Kilpatrick A, Daszak P, Jones MJ, Marra PP, Kramer LD. Host heterogeneity dominates West Nile virus transmission. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273(1599), 2327–2333.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3575google scholar: lookup
  26. Komar N, Panella NA, Golnar AJ, Hamer GL. Forage ratio analysis of the southern house mosquito in College Station, Texas. Vector‐Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 18(9), 485–490.
    doi: 10.1089/vbz.2018.2285google scholar: lookup
  27. L'Ambert G, Gendrot M, Briolant S, Nguyen A, Pages S, Bosio L. Analysis of trapped mosquito excreta as a noninvasive method to reveal biodiversity and arbovirus circulation. Molecular Ecology Resources 23(2), 410–423.
    doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13716google scholar: lookup
  28. Lambin EF, Tran A, Vanwambeke SO, Linard C, Soti V. Pathogenic landscapes: interactions between land, people, disease vectors, and their animal hosts. International Journal of Health Geographics 9(1), 54.
    doi: 10.1186/1476-072x-9-54google scholar: lookup
  29. Lebarbenchon C, Chang CM, Grandhomme V, Dietrich M, Kayser Y, Elguero E, Gauthier-Clerc M. Avian influenza circulation in the Camargue (south of France) during the 2006–07 season. Avian diseases 54(s1), 446‐449.
  30. Maia MF, Robinson A, John A, Mgando J, Simfukwe E, Moore SJ. Comparison of the CDC backpack aspirator and the Prokopack aspirator for sampling indoor‐ and outdoor‐resting mosquitoes in southern Tanzania. Parasites & Vectors 4(1), 124.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-124google scholar: lookup
  31. Molaei G, Andreadis TG. Identification of avian‐ and mammalian‐derived Bloodmeals in Aedes vexans and Culiseta melanura (Diptera: Culicidae) and its implication for West Nile virus transmission in Connecticut, U.S.A.. Journal of Medical Entomology 43(5), 1088–1093.
  32. Morlais I, Simard F, Ponçon N, Cohuet A, Fontenille D. Intraspecific nucleotide variation in Anopheles gambiae: new insights into the biology of malaria vectors. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 71(6), 795–802.
    doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2004.71.795google scholar: lookup
  33. Murgue B, Murri S, Triki H, Deubel V, Zeller HG. West Nile in the Mediterranean basin: 1950‐2000. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences 951(1), 117–126.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02690.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  34. Nikolay B. A review of West Nile and Usutu virus co‐circulation in Europe: how much do transmission cycles overlap?. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 109(10), 609–618.
    doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trv066google scholar: lookup
  35. Pacenti M, Sinigaglia A, Franchin E, Pagni S, Lavezzo E, Montarsi F. Human West Nile virus lineage 2 infection: epidemiological, clinical, and virological findings. Viruses 12(4), 458.
    doi: 10.3390/v12040458google scholar: lookup
  36. Pérez-Ramírez E, Llorente F, Jiménez-Clavero MÁ. Experimental infections of wild birds with West Nile virus. Viruses 6(2), 752–781.
  37. Ponçon N, Toty C, L'Ambert G, Le Goff G, Brengues C, Schaffner F. Population dynamics of pest mosquitoes and potential malaria and West Nile virus vectors in relation to climatic factors and human activities in the Camargue, France. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 21(4), 350–357.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2007.00701.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  38. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  39. Reisen WK. Landscape epidemiology of vector‐borne diseases. Annual Review of Entomology 55(1), 461–483.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085419google scholar: lookup
  40. . The rising global economic costs of Aedes and Aedes‐borne diseases. .
  41. Roiz D, Ruiz S, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Landscape effects on the presence, abundance and diversity of mosquitoes in Mediterranean wetlands. PLoS One 10(6), e0128112.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128112google scholar: lookup
  42. Roiz D, Vázquez A, Ruiz S, Tenorio A, Soriguer R, Figuerola J. Evidence that passerine birds act as amplifying hosts for Usutu virus circulation. EcoHealth 16(4), 734–742.
    doi: 10.1007/s10393-019-01441-3google scholar: lookup
  43. Root JJ, Bosco-Lauth AM. West Nile virus associations in wild mammals: an update. Viruses 11(5), 459.
  44. Santiago-Alarcon D. A meta‐analytic approach to investigate mosquitoes' (Diptera: Culicidae) blood feeding preferences from non‐urban to urban environments. In: Gutiérrez-López RG, Logan JG & Martínez-de la Puente J. (Eds.) Ecology and control of vector-borne diseases, Vol. 7. Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 161–177.
    doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-931-2google scholar: lookup
  45. Sauer FG, Jaworski L, Lühken R, Kiel E. Impacts of sampling rhythm and exposition on the effectiveness of artificial resting shelters for mosquito collection in northern Germany. Journal of Vector Ecology 45(1), 142–146.
    doi: 10.1111/jvec.12383google scholar: lookup
  46. Shaikevich EV, Vinogradova EB, Bouattour A, De Gouveia Almeida AP. Genetic diversity of Culex pipiens mosquitoes in distinct populations from Europe: contribution of cx. Quinquefasciatus in Mediterranean populations. Parasites & Vectors 9(1), 47.
    doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1333-8google scholar: lookup
  47. Soto A, De Coninck L, Devlies AS, Van De Wiele C, Rosales Rosas AL, Wang L. Belgian Culex pipiens pipiens are competent vectors for West Nile virus while Culex modestus are competent vectors for Usutu virus. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 17(9), e0011649.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011649google scholar: lookup
  48. Sutherland WJ, Newton I, Green R. Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. England: OUP Oxford.
  49. Tolsá-García M, Pontifes P, García-Suárez O, Wehmeyer M, Galvan ALV, Martínez-Duque P. A Community Competence Index to estimate infection risk in the context of the diversity‐disease risk relationship: the effect of land use on West Nile virus. Authorea .
    doi: 10.22541/au.173768424.41256145/v1google scholar: lookup
  50. Tolsá-García MJ, García-Peña GE, Rico-Chávez O, Roche B, Suzán G. Macroecology of birds potentially susceptible to West Nile virus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285(1893), 20182178.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2178google scholar: lookup
  51. Tolsá-García MJ, Wehmeyer ML, Sauer FG, Schmidt-Chanasit J, Roiz D, Lühken R. Worldwide transmission and infection risk of mosquito vectors of West Nile, St. Louis encephalitis, Usutu and Japanese encephalitis viruses: a systematic review. Scientific Reports 13(1), 308.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27236-1google scholar: lookup
  52. Vahey GM, Mathis S, Martin SW, Gould CV, Staples JE, Lindsey NP. West Nile virus and other domestic nationally notifiable arboviral diseases—United States, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70(32), 1069–1074.
    doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7032a1google scholar: lookup
  53. Wang H, Abbo SR, Visser TM, Westenberg M, Geertsema C, Fros JJ. Competition between Usutu virus and West Nile virus during simultaneous and sequential infection of Culex pipiens mosquitoes. Emerging Microbes & Infections 9(1), 2642–2652.
    doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1854623google scholar: lookup
  54. Wehmeyer ML, Tolsá-García MJ, Sauer FG, Schmidt-Chanasit J, Roiz D, Lühken R. Global database of mosquito host feeding patterns. .
    doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4661866google scholar: lookup
  55. Zeller HG, Schuffenecker I. West Nile virus: an overview of its spread in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin in contrast to its spread in the Americas. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 23(3), 147–156.
    doi: 10.1007/s10096-003-1085-1google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Froxán-Grabalosa J, Mariani S, Cerecedo-Iglesias C, Richter-Boix A, Torner AO, Pla M, Brotons L, Bartumeus F. Ecological drivers of arboviral disease risk: Vector-host interfaces in a Mediterranean wetland of Northeastern Spain. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2025 Aug;19(8):e0013447.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013447pubmed: 40857344google scholar: lookup
  2. Hernández-Triana LM, Sewgobind S, Parekh I, Johnson N, Mansfield KL. Evidence of Transmission Capability in UK Culex pipiens for Japanese Encephalitis Virus (JEV) Genotype I and Potential Impact of Climate Change. Viruses 2025 Jun 20;17(7).
    doi: 10.3390/v17070869pubmed: 40733487google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 106,221 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.