论文部分内容阅读
目的比较格栅法、目测法、粘捕法和笼诱法监测蝇密度的差异,为有效应用格栅法监测蝇密度提供依据。方法按照GB/T23796-2009《病媒生物密度监测方法蝇类》方法在农贸市场内及外环境监测蝇密度。结果室内监测,格栅法蝇密度低于粘捕法和目测法,但格栅法与目测法及粘捕法之间差异无统计学意义;格栅法与目测法蝇密度相关性极高(r=0.933489,P=0.000),格栅法与粘捕法蝇密度的相关性较高(r=0.791836,P=0.004);室外监测,格栅法蝇密度低于目测法,略高于笼诱法,格栅法与目测法及笼诱法监测蝇密度之间差异无统计学意义;格栅法与目测法蝇密度无相关性(r=0.408318,P=0.212),格栅法与笼诱法蝇密度的相关性较高(r=0.848092,P=0.001)。结论格栅法监测可用于蝇密度监测,室内可与目测法、粘捕法互相替换,室外可与笼诱法互相替换。
Objective To compare the difference of flies density by grid method, visual inspection method, sticky catching method and cage induction method, so as to provide a basis for effective application of grate method to monitor flies density. Methods The density of flies was monitored in the farmer’s market and in the external environment according to GB / T23796-2009 Methods for Monitoring the Density of Pathogenic Vector in Flies. Results There was no significant difference between the gravimetric method and the visual observation method and the sticky catching method in indoor monitoring and grid method flies, r = 0.933489, P = 0.000). The correlation between the grid method and density of sticking trapping flies was higher (r = 0.791836, P = 0.004) There was no significant difference in the density of flies between the grid method, the grid method and the visual method and the caged method. There was no correlation between the grid method and the flies density of the visual method (r = 0.408318, P = 0.212) The density of lure flies was highly correlated (r = 0.848092, P = 0.001). Conclusion The grid monitoring method can be used for the monitoring of fly density. Indoor can be replaced with visual inspection and stick-catching method, and outdoor can be replaced with cage induction.