<%BANNER%>

Mosquito and Sentinel Chicken Interactions with an Assessment of Experimental Cage Design and Flight Activity of Mosquit...

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101209_AAAAAM INGEST_TIME 2010-12-09T06:52:29Z PACKAGE UFE0017601_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 37560 DFID F20101209_AAAIDD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH kobylinski_k_Page_029.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
2b55e68374e3535dd7cea88abd5ba93f
SHA-1
f8fd3b96b764d42522d6fce7c7020f70022c8ccd
2614 F20101209_AAAICO kobylinski_k_Page_160.txt
9a13d7215025701f3ebd2d5334cd901e
63c8857ec5c2259a9593432c617fe8093ffd3de5
63669 F20101209_AAAHXI kobylinski_k_Page_151.pro
0ed9ab34c28519d8e77941676a009cff
7992976c95eaf50e73484b758e92fe200cd44419
25271604 F20101209_AAAGTS kobylinski_k_Page_063.tif
32ddd5774ac6301ab8312a8c3286a6fc
f9c62885d083dd901d4b95b13c3ccf2b00903be7
16500 F20101209_AAAHWU kobylinski_k_Page_136.pro
96b58edd377a1b07f59ba668bdd0952b
cbd6a09023fa530be7fc06419a5b536ec5918fdd
9084 F20101209_AAAHAB kobylinski_k_Page_019thm.jpg
c3c528896bfebc29ab2fd26b83a6000d
97f1b82fb4bc422f7d6834c2ed43de033e864315
35049 F20101209_AAAGUG kobylinski_k_Page_130.QC.jpg
fe53ffa6fdf382563750bde2ffbe632c
e6b52dd17b55c3dfc1b8a8ecdbf3f4b10aeb56bf
8579 F20101209_AAAIDE kobylinski_k_Page_088thm.jpg
1193a6b67d09f85de46c9a3f7256f0f3
983807509a618655cc140b26d147175715c095e9
2777 F20101209_AAAICP kobylinski_k_Page_161.txt
3bd8cf4d419f27f97b8d19fcdb3006be
810e38d760a63593d2f827fbf8a917c088920cef
61775 F20101209_AAAHXJ kobylinski_k_Page_153.pro
baed4ca6928d944104c3b8b82ebebf7e
76c12aad25d4cb76249d4218794059d3b0a1ed6b
23664 F20101209_AAAGTT kobylinski_k_Page_165.pro
5846fa30cc4648283fb0b06e407e510e
a54c6db303f0c72ad011fa3cb7d73f89712c6157
15479 F20101209_AAAHWV kobylinski_k_Page_137.pro
4e29437eebef5d7b35e193c4710ff376
410a885b3c5c098462c232136b66cc33d2d361a3
33820 F20101209_AAAHAC kobylinski_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
db8d5565904e13e5046a38ad171a5dae
a46072d86516f3e42a608619614bf67eb8a26d42
4918 F20101209_AAAGUH kobylinski_k_Page_002.jpg
e22ddae0cbbb2a7496e4be4510b1ff2b
1548d085c569b5313db8acffea8866a3bcaf23b9
3740 F20101209_AAAIDF kobylinski_k_Page_138thm.jpg
09fd4a34127cbee8161533ad8ba6b69b
c741c4cbf93e739650b673e6f821756e57533b5a
2597 F20101209_AAAICQ kobylinski_k_Page_163.txt
475dd5da5851fc6a4fba6cd43cbe9041
a94d308c69ef85adb6ad2b81f3f233c41b71107d
65084 F20101209_AAAHXK kobylinski_k_Page_154.pro
7d289cc86f41b3a93b947dbbf5adb82d
5ca8b93bccc35ca02e98a385527e4f16a4d1a32d
1053954 F20101209_AAAGTU kobylinski_k_Page_124.tif
d33fb9e285d3668919715aa9a54094ed
97d7673ed71c7e4a74ace95bf0ead8161d0921fe
8479 F20101209_AAAHWW kobylinski_k_Page_138.pro
4c4371f0f83b2104f9694906622747ff
d52134b146f89c4d25a2983fb6c0c836130737e0
3161 F20101209_AAAHAD kobylinski_k_Page_113thm.jpg
8f2057e1d31c893e0616ccb5300cd7c3
0399b6b8827998e701cf412b1f22d9ebac709a70
F20101209_AAAGUI kobylinski_k_Page_118.tif
c71eba4e3f8dcde7795e6dba064c1a31
839723c2d8fde90f1f9b5eafc7eddba2e47a9273
8535 F20101209_AAAIDG kobylinski_k_Page_090thm.jpg
991a32bc38da8087afd1c1232dcbaa8c
a5aaaa68cc4b4f53baab56e63826c89f981a8fe2
2685 F20101209_AAAICR kobylinski_k_Page_164.txt
9a3871259dc675008cab83bc4cd03ccb
bc170045248c9e0e805cadda63e90f1550d861f5
67379 F20101209_AAAHXL kobylinski_k_Page_155.pro
48d8796668c0179bd2c129e2a7d2fdf1
e53dde6993741611913ab2f4fa939e1324a89307
108744 F20101209_AAAGTV kobylinski_k_Page_092.jpg
a57b2a28072a2d876169a765b44bdde6
91fd0bff478ad3d17b810eee98609e971bad5d54
9556 F20101209_AAAHWX kobylinski_k_Page_139.pro
03e55539fc59566a0cde056900a5263e
e89df354ca27f81cfc4a860e3d9b59b4b1d1ae3b
F20101209_AAAHAE kobylinski_k_Page_029.tif
1ac36c213dfd64323d4177c84c17edd7
901fee204697bb646a1b97249f3b72f812d0e21c
2095 F20101209_AAAGUJ kobylinski_k_Page_075.txt
643a26b3ed6ba0b298af85a94fd5fcf3
c947d5bf0ab72c3bffb4d26ba213c6f5b6a08ecf
9011 F20101209_AAAIDH kobylinski_k_Page_053thm.jpg
07159f194f08d5fb73969532160ff32c
51ffac16cfc0436bf83fecd46cd8b155b7b0fa5a
1430 F20101209_AAAICS kobylinski_k_Page_166.txt
61c5b14ec52c1a17a525c5e3ef923426
e0b4281c9a0bb5aa41e1b46c10fcd8af40968654
2043 F20101209_AAAHYA kobylinski_k_Page_012.txt
1e6e767fa3f54a9af5b75d320024b4a3
9edc32eed40663b2b17a8a1b8cb3c63c0ea74d03
68990 F20101209_AAAHXM kobylinski_k_Page_157.pro
7fe300c9a31965695558f7ce77ba84dd
d63d597b19330283ac9bfc9a6505dfe0808d388d
153 F20101209_AAAGTW kobylinski_k_Page_103.txt
10e349a8ad7e249eaccfb53b1639ee0d
68a870d39a2ba485a2418941063d3c690402ffdc
11548 F20101209_AAAHWY kobylinski_k_Page_140.pro
e1165081737d913305d0382fd4f1522b
59b6cd0ecff7d947e68e4f1103201a6f1264ad34
3410 F20101209_AAAHAF kobylinski_k_Page_144thm.jpg
40f3c208ba2e0d34e07766b6d22ebe04
3eebe3f07fdf04afd4ca3b86fc210d314a6243d5
139 F20101209_AAAGUK kobylinski_k_Page_068.txt
8a956f94fada865283ae7aa871bf19bb
1d12c70928b5885b05795bb83984d59220976697
35306 F20101209_AAAIDI kobylinski_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
ac01e3ff9332ec91644ef507979dd820
edb5b5502a40b131ad23885d8537d89afe202cbf
2427 F20101209_AAAICT kobylinski_k_Page_001thm.jpg
168f31e953a63d223e3b06636d36825d
839dc38a166d8870435e97a94d92c954e599a645
2113 F20101209_AAAHYB kobylinski_k_Page_013.txt
ee56258ce3dbab5d91d634cd8f348bc9
c3fca0d0727e922b55133779a70265e8a988e513
66304 F20101209_AAAHXN kobylinski_k_Page_158.pro
ded792001aabb858964953a936bdeff3
e82bdb1b821e37c700da8465b2e59e8d0c14697a
4496 F20101209_AAAGTX kobylinski_k_Page_102thm.jpg
01418a7d24878eac265a535861a873d7
8b6fbe92944b26e5b75a91dbf3c400f0f6e33814
7229 F20101209_AAAHWZ kobylinski_k_Page_141.pro
c933056a9a813da392ad2b61155b4359
f2f25ae284ae28bdf6ae9134a02e072fcb0dc540
107071 F20101209_AAAHAG kobylinski_k_Page_132.jpg
099f4d2cee104f6e952c4c96e451d008
9b057af9d32f2d6d86c519594acfcc41f69b42c6
5574 F20101209_AAAGUL kobylinski_k_Page_135thm.jpg
05d4b6bcdd3560675fc9dd911be7c409
73ba13553f684ede7f7f3a8dd4f47211e5dae513
33798 F20101209_AAAICU kobylinski_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
8e4c158c170f615c91662861bf9eb02e
b286279d11f8d1f647bd96555447a9716e8ce902
2151 F20101209_AAAHYC kobylinski_k_Page_014.txt
24dcd5cb4bb5cd38360d3e3f8eae43d2
b24ae9632f1d2e0cedf02aaf9461e86ea0b6348e
68033 F20101209_AAAHXO kobylinski_k_Page_159.pro
c56d89142142805332eb5dd377ab1d02
bd2634b232c9d9c1085e3e965fa9cf26eeaa174a
105758 F20101209_AAAGTY kobylinski_k_Page_119.jpg
25853d0f0aab501f8318953789931e91
fe0f85a87aa24c58edb7f61d60d21e867da3a7cb
8908 F20101209_AAAGVA kobylinski_k_Page_092thm.jpg
4e12a77083c5193a6c50ed6237933a88
ad3b41ae52580a81db7c152c1785755c2658222e
8771 F20101209_AAAGUM kobylinski_k_Page_082thm.jpg
d220c590bf8bebc4c09b31d9df8ab3ab
00e6e97e51c1a0f5ba1c136bb56f5f8e9960ef9a
8674 F20101209_AAAIDJ kobylinski_k_Page_119thm.jpg
01b70ccdbe1528c5fc051a16a03a735b
1cd2c28c83591dbffa1e2fa34c12e88cfc32b902
8415 F20101209_AAAICV kobylinski_k_Page_089thm.jpg
084bbd66fc265ca56c403ed9eaca159a
b25b8cb29e7d4c3d20ea052eaabdf30cdb63868f
2034 F20101209_AAAHYD kobylinski_k_Page_015.txt
7d68777697d638bf1bf197930afe40eb
661a600c095da2ab6582a66a92bddad481a9ad0c
64921 F20101209_AAAHXP kobylinski_k_Page_160.pro
144145e5a36647fcb323a4d4e89ccda4
5777d5a6a02d7742184facfee54b85533addf901
134344 F20101209_AAAGTZ kobylinski_k_Page_160.jpg
7452ad69caac54d27840edfb84967db7
60980a00a4045b1c75e0fca553ecc39650a2df24
2696 F20101209_AAAHAH kobylinski_k_Page_007.txt
765b2ad71c5666099ad4494334758880
496c17694534fc515b82bf1d65f688723d846e16
119032 F20101209_AAAGVB kobylinski_k_Page_096.jp2
5cd5e8db43d03b4b38e2974e690f5112
3ab763914da0dbf23c0f82a8e8eedf66ad98a5b2
5817 F20101209_AAAGUN kobylinski_k_Page_002.jp2
2d3cb1b3fba07dec2d1522008df58e0c
015e8dcb0bb442961fa9db42affaefaec54cb3ca
31725 F20101209_AAAIDK kobylinski_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
1cef960d69827d0c01f0470198f06345
5b56777856b8cc889922abf68601affd5c039687
3292 F20101209_AAAICW kobylinski_k_Page_122thm.jpg
00ba0365d53db03ebe63fceacfd84f9c
e6b71198407a6f76f19378f9675ac3d22aee1a58
2183 F20101209_AAAHYE kobylinski_k_Page_017.txt
2b93aba95e6338dad9f93477d4ddc0bf
2c7cfd8edc5cd57f767eef55c6d4d423b4525246
2040 F20101209_AAAHAI kobylinski_k_Page_081.txt
e8e9fa525be3db62596cebe3090e3eef
020d6632f7e9553d581f06c0c12e2a2fe40c6a5c
6594 F20101209_AAAGVC kobylinski_k_Page_127.QC.jpg
6e056e00f9277bc99e1a92ad462fbca3
162f03fd29f669fe4053da9c2dbb443135f4eb1d
4071 F20101209_AAAGUO kobylinski_k_Page_087thm.jpg
bf23e51c468b62eeaa5d2891c1856bf4
fb617b21ff08cc5bfe68d88b03a29b50c75a64dc
68951 F20101209_AAAHXQ kobylinski_k_Page_161.pro
94badb8e48ef1eeb540817c53ffa4805
e54742ca5c88da682eba8ccabdb5ca9531d102c9
7967 F20101209_AAAIEA kobylinski_k_Page_007thm.jpg
eb6e448ca7e58f8fea9d31c8945f5b13
4c4a6b8a41acd648e2491f9f2a0b96b6e7b98c6f
37852 F20101209_AAAIDL kobylinski_k_Page_148.QC.jpg
8154d89a304f9143dee7c3594219767f
0cf419ceef1fffcf3b5f25a843eae450e6a3a21b
37146 F20101209_AAAICX kobylinski_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
8fdb7ea33282f38c59074b7bc7431ae4
ccaf0dac06ce02089bb06108964d4004e178e51b
2173 F20101209_AAAHYF kobylinski_k_Page_019.txt
d20412dd8af12984f67675cf587ff356
cd00c10692f0190e9c9b8dbe44a69f5120f3fae2
F20101209_AAAHAJ kobylinski_k_Page_098.tif
0c4c031c5205a5629044697670c6433a
8c1dc1f092148eee812cc2146868c36e5c08f53b
1051985 F20101209_AAAGVD kobylinski_k_Page_154.jp2
40f45cfbc9e2a2b4cd4d31a23180d75f
92f766b604535345ec46166aed86cbbbeaf5d3a2
8898 F20101209_AAAGUP kobylinski_k_Page_040thm.jpg
67f28053954647428eb53177d1fb5312
3f5d433e0173ac8e01249a3d548f74eeb9a6c499
69142 F20101209_AAAHXR kobylinski_k_Page_162.pro
06e09c3a17cad855ceae1826296b057d
5fcb03e47ff2cf5a699de202e21e59e891717ab6
10013 F20101209_AAAIEB kobylinski_k_Page_156thm.jpg
7559db2b2a367c806a2ccb2f9796cbb3
fb21af3f44c6e653869ae319a4ba54473004534d
36417 F20101209_AAAIDM kobylinski_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
3d61492fa6b26fb1cbb5eef865b849d8
42540dcfb1469742607b4fdea36badbaee37b42b
3258 F20101209_AAAICY kobylinski_k_Page_070thm.jpg
d37131da079d7465e8bca756e9b4e66e
cfa6aa3187791af76e14bc10ee9199f1017c77b9
2087 F20101209_AAAHYG kobylinski_k_Page_021.txt
d81f886465903b2b30496bbf23c86b60
682660be6727d0221d0ee4c754b63c33f4580230
35019 F20101209_AAAHXS kobylinski_k_Page_166.pro
6457feac9af91131cf40de5194af63e7
e6f4178c964951bf72ed0fd7467aa219f0f9ef88
F20101209_AAAHAK kobylinski_k_Page_120.tif
7ea7252aa68bce852fd8ebca4663f4ee
d9216238f67d3278007f5fab1424e1a53a68f42a
135609 F20101209_AAAGVE kobylinski_k_Page_157.jp2
b7f774f2ee152b2626fcf0a53193e8a5
df4cc3873b9d7a90fe1c5295b4a9f811c9936ebd
73430 F20101209_AAAGUQ kobylinski_k_Page_006.pro
e576dac9ec3e5ed3ea174900a93bb171
8cc7c7a6a2fd231d1c74b176a55fd225d5ae283d
8721 F20101209_AAAIEC kobylinski_k_Page_014thm.jpg
89486b1295dc5e2e8267d3b31173dd5b
5894ad425509a2f7a526f2d892e75db0ec622ffc
34881 F20101209_AAAIDN kobylinski_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
1551f638c99c5b1b96a0d75bd06b6197
b9736b4915dc56dc2b0ff80eafe7163fcefaf1e7
8706 F20101209_AAAICZ kobylinski_k_Page_023thm.jpg
575462b63f7075ab19d6710377a94fde
9ddc51673ce4fdb6a18905d6f03b70ec3db2eb94
2110 F20101209_AAAHYH kobylinski_k_Page_022.txt
11553a0256773ec98ee14bb61d9c6c67
6307eda868cf8d6ca558b76ab68153ada5d8dd3e
531 F20101209_AAAHXT kobylinski_k_Page_001.txt
bc105a8ab7e848fc39ee3bf2d7cc10bd
36a92ba926b25ca9a9ae7abd6ec0141b13a07065
54940 F20101209_AAAHBA kobylinski_k_Page_133.pro
ad32e1bd1f270002ed31fc2692ad2c19
a20f0bb61e4d5b17f194dc62b71dfcbd541fea35
102325 F20101209_AAAHAL kobylinski_k_Page_012.jpg
fa4858a220bd9bd348ca174a8a5d3014
a3d304acae4a60f89de77e606bccd88855622178
1883240 F20101209_AAAGVF kobylinski_k.pdf
5a0e95edffd049514199a9e24c6bada8
1fb7fb84b57de4805292990da63c899370639016
F20101209_AAAGUR kobylinski_k_Page_155.tif
15effa2d016862a3ef2a6c5924fceada
b4f88efcf5445e58b4305b452f63f6d2f580c55a
3423 F20101209_AAAIED kobylinski_k_Page_101thm.jpg
612fe3b6a20fb47ecc1e3ba7e0812dec
e59a5ebe89b8b08283bdaad2b8e0a34bb359c97f
8893 F20101209_AAAIDO kobylinski_k_Page_106thm.jpg
4e608128e81bd9ca5c5d425d238adf46
e2872f606bc486bddd4ae1ea460e8ac593786e19
2159 F20101209_AAAHYI kobylinski_k_Page_023.txt
9c583fba3bb8826bd3b21bbc7b2410e7
80779daffcb69bbd9a9371e1049483f2e953fe34
1533 F20101209_AAAHXU kobylinski_k_Page_003.txt
482bed0801240877e7f30ec5aef2ead2
9ea9536ac13fa9782cc5d66978560092d24d8d61
117550 F20101209_AAAHBB kobylinski_k_Page_053.jp2
c4e24a38743906130a36b6c8e30b6a74
66864c40d05605cc1e2ccad337d37a466ea76e50
2781 F20101209_AAAHAM kobylinski_k_Page_162.txt
f9e1a7a170f85bc1f1fdd192c62ac6ef
e55a89a504b3760013541c906f41ec7d4b522e0c
21055 F20101209_AAAGVG kobylinski_k_Page_049.pro
94e34a477fecd27d762abd29fe2e415e
17c70723717d14d7e9d109c624683315fe9b7546
9663 F20101209_AAAGUS kobylinski_k_Page_136.QC.jpg
c386d7aaf8f7449d613df116f07d1238
5d2366ac44c6895ed079bf8d03dea6ff78e9cf43
35715 F20101209_AAAIEE kobylinski_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
20c4bd71e3db847ea24a1d80b3ca88d2
80c618303512d1537bac38db88c76f1a0ae200ff
36637 F20101209_AAAIDP kobylinski_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
c0a18eae9cdf66c295852dcc4a9d04ca
8fb0f246936cb44852ccec5977ec66c93f1a2b1f
2179 F20101209_AAAHYJ kobylinski_k_Page_024.txt
742ca3636573af0fd96ce57b5f6559c5
23fd51bff2dc3a83d0beea71108b17ea84545ee6
4125 F20101209_AAAHXV kobylinski_k_Page_004.txt
61f9bd9f7b5a5f5c460615502a999e22
b9a1de4e1086e0fe6e564982f3f1962075810694
51645 F20101209_AAAHBC kobylinski_k_Page_036.pro
c0ae86bd2a50008cda8c4e5e4ae4e371
8ea0b312a4c11241c3e6d6658904f2af009240bc
116818 F20101209_AAAHAN kobylinski_k_Page_106.jp2
3b0bd7640e875fd1404024176d300055
76972dd37dfa1a453b98e438d1bd20dd5585dd8e
52417 F20101209_AAAGVH kobylinski_k_Page_091.pro
d85c950d163b8fc18f5cae031fa7c61d
346b50f12d51cc0e19f1d918257798b7bb8d4727
192518 F20101209_AAAGUT kobylinski_k_Page_066.jp2
f0e5032f02edca69c87a82e3adffa0b2
436ae9d3b6adf7df3cd01a7b98ec3742735b30b6
37835 F20101209_AAAIEF kobylinski_k_Page_129.QC.jpg
39b20f5bba69be5dba52b865fde28ae1
abfd31db932c04797dc47b40754d32c4d71531be
6278 F20101209_AAAIDQ kobylinski_k_Page_084thm.jpg
46836c3637d5e41cb67a97e79c6863a9
4d23095c2918f7e77ce1227edf7638498c750edf
2097 F20101209_AAAHYK kobylinski_k_Page_025.txt
cdbf36875c45f7a5b055a83393ef6370
2c9e5b2400aeb7a5038385c4541867d088a5b6a0
3003 F20101209_AAAHXW kobylinski_k_Page_006.txt
68204e63d59aa3557ca3b7afb90ecf72
c267d4cead8f3f7b34ceb46161964fefc0b4ce15
3570 F20101209_AAAHAO kobylinski_k_Page_141thm.jpg
a95144954b7bf053f08e73a139872254
0c0b6c3558b977a4af7e65d732f2e44e9217c2ea
113562 F20101209_AAAGVI kobylinski_k_Page_036.jp2
415c4656bf646cbd3dc0ae63de6016d0
84f3cd3bf650c0e2bcd6b29519ee72c5a2888ee0
8423998 F20101209_AAAGUU kobylinski_k_Page_140.tif
cacca800492fe48f72de25a4a6a96864
dff2517e89293ff4f0da0df08daf5d5e57e0932b
112845 F20101209_AAAHBD kobylinski_k_Page_018.jp2
08c33c8d11928be4655c030cd2f4a077
ec92726d03a3c933c16379e60a09f0bc8d199227
6275 F20101209_AAAIEG kobylinski_k_Page_100thm.jpg
5f49b1f49d376cef3e9b27cf4e5e5eee
7fa9acbbda420f2994a0c33944e1e50faa201b85
8849 F20101209_AAAIDR kobylinski_k_Page_097thm.jpg
5dadac004a7ab66fb51c9f745e33addb
b762b8a37416d7ef02dfe8cae0aee943cfacd3bc
2064 F20101209_AAAHYL kobylinski_k_Page_026.txt
d17226a47260178a4f555786092c4493
dc0e5a45339781172800c3f97db045f9e6d00270
2452 F20101209_AAAHXX kobylinski_k_Page_009.txt
0196dc7ee421b7fd9a0c7f9ee8d30e51
f4db6e755c2c323c90092d903dce743660f5a414
67728 F20101209_AAAHAP kobylinski_k_Page_149.pro
dc0c9048c1a828eeee0bb2576cc7b334
8116333e2f4252aa387590d2cc13e9526ef7f0d5
26222 F20101209_AAAGVJ kobylinski_k_Page_143.jpg
53d84f89c6857409c797b77b42e197cb
00e91ba9215163fafcdc92f5e7995b0ac930d001
115420 F20101209_AAAGUV kobylinski_k_Page_015.jp2
bd36b293e98e095d8ee608efdba9596b
0e40f4feb5df3896cfe8bf07af5e9cca2811884b
108805 F20101209_AAAHBE kobylinski_k_Page_034.jpg
7e1ae2465453de861cf30fd93927785f
18209453cbbd3e2d5459f7c686ef436bcd30cd3d
28949 F20101209_AAAIEH kobylinski_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
822e4fbdee559e0ffef3dcd344a2e442
39582a2b4bae8225c6dde52f2e114e027eea3c0b
9568 F20101209_AAAIDS kobylinski_k_Page_149thm.jpg
034f19326b40d5d7f7b318e76eae7ec1
bcecbf86afd3e7ea1a4e349b08cebd2f1583762e
2013 F20101209_AAAHZA kobylinski_k_Page_042.txt
50813dc39d27bb869f93c1ff8dc622e4
53b6243907ab3626dc1827cdf586fafa9a8dac12
1988 F20101209_AAAHYM kobylinski_k_Page_027.txt
3df5a6a48fd4233b94710e246a5ad4d8
118c182ff259813cfc394d8644eed2f6fcf1ebfe
1926 F20101209_AAAHXY kobylinski_k_Page_010.txt
454e406fdc34281306032632aedd5fd6
f4ccfbded68d0e498d9f573c7c45ee53f62583b6
110373 F20101209_AAAHAQ kobylinski_k_Page_027.jp2
b103cd4e84e84f19a61fde03fa75b9b7
69c16d95acd3dc1c02c93e346e73a061cf6b99b4
2106 F20101209_AAAGVK kobylinski_k_Page_048.txt
8306f6b46c334943c4635b366a640759
c742ff999af57db234cdcbc9e0633b365b0f5f5e
24379 F20101209_AAAGUW kobylinski_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
9cb036959846f9e74512217cca7d2374
730d82d70fdde11159dcf284f965761cba6f0143
109155 F20101209_AAAHBF kobylinski_k_Page_072.jpg
31127b5cf8a038dea723b451357e4580
08cd3dad2ad3f8c07d93ff7e1c9ed174c8b00249
20647 F20101209_AAAIEI kobylinski_k_Page_134.QC.jpg
5b67de3a8df139d1742b094958126bc9
220163e7762bdd6abdf919d4d1c0032d444cac9d
32693 F20101209_AAAIDT kobylinski_k_Page_147.QC.jpg
f897e0133b35371aacd7af36e61e419f
4c67a599bb0595c90481bd6d6920a16b0cc15f0f
2025 F20101209_AAAHZB kobylinski_k_Page_043.txt
e9a3319856b8bbc5a5ca284859ad093f
6fc9d4d17450c01d84622891931107fe63e80a17
2171 F20101209_AAAHYN kobylinski_k_Page_028.txt
1b5fe5b20ba380587f071c87d2bccd84
4f18839daf1710b0839fdc63e73811d6f44cdc6b
2144 F20101209_AAAHXZ kobylinski_k_Page_011.txt
256be134929ab29b382ef768778ebd2c
17d51b74ec9d5b2db91242823cceeda50733d770
67302 F20101209_AAAHAR kobylinski_k_Page_100.jpg
2ada33f3c8f81f5a49a9fcbd2d6f6002
17ebc1abab6728d55bbc3b117b8c3d204f062d99
2028 F20101209_AAAGVL kobylinski_k_Page_108.txt
a20329cb9bafea921c33da1cf2055ac7
2b6aa3d0f0f2f2ce0e7320b818fb54bbf652cc82
109523 F20101209_AAAGUX kobylinski_k_Page_055.jp2
4d400f8668d195246936aa5053347bf5
db30f08a06add8253236345d80adc155bcaf986d
23433 F20101209_AAAHBG kobylinski_k_Page_071.jpg
783dc5d3554adc692bc99b911f493dbc
63a8749de9a3062e0cd297d83b4b4c3ff8338bfa
8472 F20101209_AAAIEJ kobylinski_k_Page_026thm.jpg
7a07ed92415d53429dff84cdce5b84f5
ab33fdc30fbe14619335b3118a4150253a7ac940
7810 F20101209_AAAIDU kobylinski_k_Page_146thm.jpg
16653c4f72ba45c10350f11ea90027e3
6c4c96ac94e2d23b624115a80b4488fbdb6ec258
2065 F20101209_AAAHZC kobylinski_k_Page_044.txt
eea75b43a693b38e8f797983217f6ea9
a631373909f63a1a7fdebda9d6ceed0d55797957
F20101209_AAAHYO kobylinski_k_Page_029.txt
35bb2b9c08692043191890296829a316
91381443bc0fe161f5d115ee168be3e40b1be9de
F20101209_AAAGWA kobylinski_k_Page_005.tif
d38f89a64a40a38c31a0c1ab5846cc55
578dbee27b93878faaac62721a4d98f23e0fb381
2672 F20101209_AAAHAS kobylinski_k_Page_158.txt
cae21ef407832a2a28131378c5904306
882d4d587f76a165d9d9b657608b63fa3b833333
562 F20101209_AAAGVM kobylinski_k_Page_008.txt
cbffab31acbf0ba1e2aea5b82996b1b3
d960ce94483fa73c18297867610c3f3e6093246c
18785 F20101209_AAAGUY kobylinski_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
ff8c63542487ae3255217b918951ee87
d4aad6498f10a94d77f3e37d0e9fa10283b56a1e
589 F20101209_AAAHBH kobylinski_k_Page_071.txt
baae96c87a4738d72c068e427be540ce
c189232864b211127243a5e13723aae9eb4cf34c
35444 F20101209_AAAIDV kobylinski_k_Page_132.QC.jpg
5b29d9ccc9886b173d5315fdc87bbd3f
71005a480fdab9d310b6df5a5a4f328fc9aaf442
2102 F20101209_AAAHZD kobylinski_k_Page_045.txt
9eaa7d7d031bec81dca89fd1826a3b8e
052d54f4b7672101bf6b3e6bae1d226da3a51e73
F20101209_AAAHYP kobylinski_k_Page_030.txt
44baf2ebe355c7cecee79abb7259ea42
9c640debb6219a8b619b0b9a841f6dd74fa5fd13
F20101209_AAAGWB kobylinski_k_Page_119.tif
4ba010eea36382e74fec7d0987b0d1d1
2b6eba052d2a393b92a6343da14cd2dd1757b8a4
106552 F20101209_AAAHAT kobylinski_k_Page_080.jpg
fbafe94b3359c64d8975b61701918d70
644e5101eff47fc056c5d1e157c94b5337fe87d4
1600 F20101209_AAAGVN kobylinski_k_Page_110thm.jpg
34fe7624291d4417c3a970b1b9b9045d
8db5018ec675e3089ec95fa1bab98132f7e7faa0
2023 F20101209_AAAGUZ kobylinski_k_Page_018.txt
687aa15fe6239492287782c490ee8054
25e4cecfab3258f12c3dd2d4d097e3d581f0ef4f
32747 F20101209_AAAIEK kobylinski_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
18a22e8d9b330450d42a39e4bd71ef4c
b831f8a23c0f92f260b0969d72c06b0750a64334
5890 F20101209_AAAIDW kobylinski_k_Page_099thm.jpg
4b6f7dc9b1bdbb09b43f7291a26f203d
77f3816cb52054f0bb0e890f48bd533a3540f5cd
2127 F20101209_AAAHZE kobylinski_k_Page_046.txt
ae977b2f63fe2ea7e7625ad98bd8a794
5a52506fc932c5ddd3a687c7bfff24303b019c3c
1942 F20101209_AAAHYQ kobylinski_k_Page_031.txt
ffaea25d4fd3af4b83d0ef42cd46d783
5a999c3bd98b1352039e1aa8706df125ce99e2c4
39481 F20101209_AAAGWC kobylinski_k_Page_122.jpg
b9e7442a13bb912ceb4db3df04877328
48f3142d2e84c1d0030e4e4dce216cfcebaaedcc
107110 F20101209_AAAHAU kobylinski_k_Page_038.jpg
94c134be2fed9cf4f56eb43895f17979
7eb672fd8ba412165ccba68338d57a9ec8b563e1
F20101209_AAAGVO kobylinski_k_Page_021.tif
3d55ff59d5db3210fcb24d7613fe6cba
07574a375844059c923423cb03035d325e7c58f1
8741 F20101209_AAAHBI kobylinski_k_Page_018thm.jpg
471f73161e702944c698f899fd049a26
c8b6d18311cb180c2760abd27a2cb213be82e988
35176 F20101209_AAAIFA kobylinski_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
dfc49ebdb0562f03b6a7396850ec8696
fc2f73fde51424e5a5a8b27a858370b48b7ecf33
2487 F20101209_AAAIEL kobylinski_k_Page_137thm.jpg
8112cbc0aeb0f60a7654e0a2aaaf2bf8
e6cf1178c661720cefafd7ddde2b3533f8742607
8827 F20101209_AAAIDX kobylinski_k_Page_073thm.jpg
4dc9ba32894c2e8409a415cba83bf726
396f1b8aca7df3881bcbf8f8ce0cf287d7fd6270
2105 F20101209_AAAHZF kobylinski_k_Page_047.txt
0bc5199d649bb9d17d0eaba19f8346d7
c4e61196de00187b7c667b5cafa22e925b47fc8a
2174 F20101209_AAAHYR kobylinski_k_Page_033.txt
1eef9f2f8d130aaba1d1a3b662fcef86
ed31784f2e2a50bb809e7bec394afd72b6883914
9112 F20101209_AAAGWD kobylinski_k_Page_035thm.jpg
df3751c366ba8e31c0eae6bcee748216
ec567d2e5612426da871ffdb36a8ad7635aeeed7
2568 F20101209_AAAHAV kobylinski_k_Page_151.txt
1c51ea502f9fb18d3b3b2e3cf77f6cf3
63a08a6f74d58d0d77675b9115a617100d3da92c
96502 F20101209_AAAGVP kobylinski_k_Page_135.pro
ba1c180fd6059a46adc4f39a39705510
e00a1fd4a70b06ecbce4c4f2c4a41f4514ceacde
4060 F20101209_AAAHBJ kobylinski_k_Page_067thm.jpg
a0ecd3587f965ae292b27afa30e2067c
91ba3d7bae2433014c4461bc22f0f35d5b4b7f74
37610 F20101209_AAAIFB kobylinski_k_Page_151.QC.jpg
ae35660654968585d4e074ae474a84b7
0d8b01cbc1661f03cf533af2dae34b95b81ed146
8352 F20101209_AAAIEM kobylinski_k_Page_076thm.jpg
e87ac171fec6b124c5b359a4481fcde2
6b01d32ec05b6c84454533a03b1e254b9f134b97
9070 F20101209_AAAIDY kobylinski_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
46036c133dd17ed238d9d07140050bc1
62dc9b975e21414426665377c684d6b8173d78b9
2077 F20101209_AAAHZG kobylinski_k_Page_050.txt
792c7980f9d7f791dfa60feabee561c7
fe92e65e47e3d8b3b8c2d74000d9196a0ab8918d
2086 F20101209_AAAHYS kobylinski_k_Page_034.txt
b7cfefaa1438e255185e0287bb977bcd
deb97cfd56f0e5f00d361488cef98367d3ce4856
113704 F20101209_AAAGWE kobylinski_k_Page_081.jp2
6432c2e48b09c5c3d82d41f0d078192e
a5cd893c8d88ad5695697f37fdb477a89f09d1ea
4310 F20101209_AAAHAW kobylinski_k_Page_064thm.jpg
130a2d3be6aaac11afab5003e500970c
2dabab26b05a087827fb3dbd0dba68a97b962319
F20101209_AAAGVQ kobylinski_k_Page_022.tif
74e684da4904aeb33fd17b6a24852ef7
11cd8a9980e7b6fac24f8aba7e6257ea234d2d06
1478 F20101209_AAAHBK kobylinski_k_Page_124.txt
4e287dce0163eb94fb26e0a59bb6a393
015493ca784b4c338367a7fb6c25b7175538ef91
8727 F20101209_AAAIFC kobylinski_k_Page_080thm.jpg
42b265ff10e10f45d56eb1046f5211ea
015132fea94c4983c14ac098d1827d6e7ec6cdd0
36348 F20101209_AAAIEN kobylinski_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
0214d493b93b7913ab8c93eed2ffbb27
0da5ec428e2e49658c30578e1d1d0454f35e21a6
37037 F20101209_AAAIDZ kobylinski_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
966bed4a5381351aa47fc6b5888a0ff1
2010b2ba74645f4791aa006b09c833892f91e4dd
2258 F20101209_AAAHZH kobylinski_k_Page_051.txt
223ff8c061f85f8246cb9c351a816e54
15b2a4898e2fe2d91a45733346e74a32d39b4d4f
2142 F20101209_AAAHYT kobylinski_k_Page_035.txt
9cda12ee92873328b0d4f9ef2ab81f0b
057efe260323d51d4145e728efa7d801d70fdaa9
116278 F20101209_AAAGWF kobylinski_k_Page_092.jp2
a4445db0786781409ecc1f37efe1009a
fa1b4c1f35fd591a6c63caea4eb72642e921609e
118 F20101209_AAAHAX kobylinski_k_Page_002.txt
eea3ccf514ce959832c0548ccada4d2f
2fa6d5083b2240d613c13664be3e4e3e910e0e60
109574 F20101209_AAAGVR kobylinski_k_Page_022.jpg
d240226e8181c9d060e9a4adddf9013b
75840fbef88f353e53089a95ba757c2261587f3e
35571 F20101209_AAAHCA kobylinski_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
6efdc85e3af5b2dd29c3eb6db80a313c
92b05cf93722a31a5ca350fde47f0fb7097ad6a3
15684 F20101209_AAAHBL kobylinski_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
a5c71f8cae664c34f02717d2614142ea
e89ff0604263d76910e0f2c7b1da9fbf0d2d954b
34843 F20101209_AAAIFD kobylinski_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
561ed5e5fde2178033ebe2cc9bf1fb21
085ddb4052c41b4fed82a3c80def85d0e77b67b6
8679 F20101209_AAAIEO kobylinski_k_Page_025thm.jpg
2301f9ed14308830d72ba0ac65ac32ea
f0e935bfd95925051fc8fe8c1905cd635fc885c4
2109 F20101209_AAAHZI kobylinski_k_Page_052.txt
7d3929f3d7b9fb7fadadefafefe4e5ec
4efe80f5409867d617d9d608086092bba11dfb43
F20101209_AAAHYU kobylinski_k_Page_036.txt
fa179233ddbec2025d169cf1bd65e4a2
ca8afca2027373ee2f790b4dd949e9dc9572c0ed
33753 F20101209_AAAGWG kobylinski_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
a61ac54d237eda111d01876e2d2f37c0
b0091ad516f41eea9ec6c10f85c5d59cba24ef03
238687 F20101209_AAAHAY kobylinski_k_Page_065.jp2
bc3206e9a74fdd1857c94f190efd57b8
7e77df13a163c6bd0c8c37b3d7ef879fe241047c
2156 F20101209_AAAGVS kobylinski_k_Page_032.txt
7c2ae9944022dc013ff885d0ca550b04
8add95fd79e82842adcfc34717ebc7f1ca6c2b80
F20101209_AAAHCB kobylinski_k_Page_027.tif
f6abeda11ddbfb7f44f2228a1e2c6b87
21599c23ae6ff065cc2ee6670214cf5cea770ffc
110068 F20101209_AAAHBM kobylinski_k_Page_045.jpg
66bf18da03d51a7881d9ce6b8a28d9fc
885636a05c9b78fb109e3c7c59a07e63c42dba32
9692 F20101209_AAAIFE kobylinski_k_Page_155thm.jpg
17011102d973f09982bda0d10651b8fd
95ec3c57ac1fcb98ba15af13fdffa0b3c0de8f66
8561 F20101209_AAAIEP kobylinski_k_Page_130thm.jpg
4c6abd8dc7074bc3a2dd9af4749b4d10
388689fbb62c01c32326ce6951e822800b77496f
2088 F20101209_AAAHZJ kobylinski_k_Page_053.txt
debbfb61c642df70bf815f03276597ea
3f8ea0467fb21c7f97d78eda0d3938a8803a1ce0
2007 F20101209_AAAHYV kobylinski_k_Page_037.txt
4e3dede516213de03ff006ca11f20490
cded0785f7626705d1d6f631d918fb0c76bef27e
2147 F20101209_AAAGWH kobylinski_k_Page_060.txt
521b20c8644b590f4f01cfbc6499dc58
84e86c4de7e6a7ad8e6812ff4fe9c4d2a52f43c3
F20101209_AAAHAZ kobylinski_k_Page_099.tif
070eb5b0e27ab57bb376007b0394f57e
8a97be5652ef0858d6f951755a37c5929269536f
44450 F20101209_AAAGVT kobylinski_k_Page_111.jpg
4feb418dabc32d2ddec0f06ecd294769
39a24c8e1e9e6be5a338ca0031556f11663546cf
8995 F20101209_AAAHCC kobylinski_k_Page_144.QC.jpg
261a87b1b21761a976dac5873e2330cc
ef9375f19c3b46f67f0e512777487210666f15c8
107841 F20101209_AAAHBN kobylinski_k_Page_091.jpg
8cec4783e52f187d0a8e5e50358c6d50
159cc598d814b73080c9f76d684c0901355b47e8
8495 F20101209_AAAIFF kobylinski_k_Page_094thm.jpg
78b31d395dc1bb811cec021a1bff1137
81d3dbb6632afbfe72ad65ed3d9d3d691560c40d
39469 F20101209_AAAIEQ kobylinski_k_Page_158.QC.jpg
804b18093c1c334e2c091f8d4bfae016
4dbba1eec119239cd7bb9673745e492f1367573d
1993 F20101209_AAAHZK kobylinski_k_Page_055.txt
caa54f1ddd716cf4f5d0185fa0ce86ba
df856fdd83ba4bd0846c91143130159b57e2b16c
2092 F20101209_AAAHYW kobylinski_k_Page_038.txt
fc363775f9050e66be7fc916c0a67702
839b1e708c909f9fb6597c5a5b788ffa2ed7b204
8437 F20101209_AAAGWI kobylinski_k_Page_036thm.jpg
a4c5fffc17696c65bf72883a42c81628
6c095ec4828f835b361473f3c24b5e6d78232f3c
2093 F20101209_AAAGVU kobylinski_k_Page_020.txt
c1b6a82befdd19b0c49ad8ce08b20c49
7ca1c4813835506679fc41b737849bd58379201a
34087 F20101209_AAAHCD kobylinski_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
98ee686d15ead110c378fddaaad0b2d7
74d3a63173b862923e78541fcb49075583258391
2046 F20101209_AAAHBO kobylinski_k_Page_054.txt
d7d9a61cb485a96e5617863fed07b452
dc2efbf3d69dd1e0a1cb75fdfb418e267032e0f0
9213 F20101209_AAAIFG kobylinski_k_Page_096thm.jpg
150206bf2f011e6e6b9e34c4f056b65e
5845f3b03ba3d8c1b9446fe0596f5fa9d48556e9
35545 F20101209_AAAIER kobylinski_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
c0d0ba3640274ee3e5f9f8ffb3a8e378
fa96755e17f33fce9b70286f56e7817ff6830ab4
2167 F20101209_AAAHZL kobylinski_k_Page_056.txt
9f0723557eff380e093308771790a18d
faeb943ea0689a720048ed50b11115f26e8f73bc
1967 F20101209_AAAHYX kobylinski_k_Page_039.txt
34973b12e1b3f1a2f7361f552d5ef036
ec72061dd89196521a8ed6fb60a486949f230c27
16000 F20101209_AAAGWJ kobylinski_k_Page_165.QC.jpg
69e66bf572cdc5576b97ddc4bb77b658
030f80efd63611fc381a9dc8015cd33e98c7e5c0
39591 F20101209_AAAGVV kobylinski_k_Page_150.QC.jpg
e9523dd215f6ce0540173f6175971b76
56fa6fcc4910ab8bd3e1a2f1d373d13313165050
8792 F20101209_AAAHCE kobylinski_k_Page_015thm.jpg
f60580c09601949eb7f7ed940a914850
c7f4ace80b13182c9b1b218bbb341bbe47d45901
1473 F20101209_AAAHBP kobylinski_k_Page_084.txt
579937557be94b80ef254673c8c6fdf8
a74c732d849b1527bd59a9a2a6ae7325dbf18e7a
34482 F20101209_AAAIFH kobylinski_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
6bbec2c2aa0732865e3b25083ee8ce49
47b3430d6c1f648832c3cdc28a4e11a80ee629f6
10617 F20101209_AAAIES kobylinski_k_Page_141.QC.jpg
18a84a448ee3ce17cb83a56d01ddd4ae
2d0198cf8395d14058cf7f6b7108286a691edf3f
2103 F20101209_AAAHZM kobylinski_k_Page_057.txt
025316562cb1a7035a3a97c1f64c8cb0
73ec9d1819a9edbd20cb2cb116ad8c4daec8c9b3
2069 F20101209_AAAHYY kobylinski_k_Page_040.txt
5afd5e9f474ac71794e09c7f54425eb5
d686ae9fdf8522858b190ac5e49ea9c6fafeb816
13283 F20101209_AAAGWK kobylinski_k_Page_123.pro
f25cb27965fd67feb8626603697d140d
2e6042fbe50a150f06cd13b2e82f31d192fc3987
10285 F20101209_AAAGVW kobylinski_k_Page_154thm.jpg
5740d5bd82bf3b9a7ee736252f1d0725
12ac644367dba818dd49767ca407409faf4200d2
F20101209_AAAHCF kobylinski_k_Page_036.tif
c018a6eb7a5987732f7959931480a9e0
3851d7355228becb4a4511401273845b2b0e025e
34002 F20101209_AAAHBQ kobylinski_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
5083f3f3e8624bde1820de170c176a62
b1d5797c260ea9d6a81f600729349ea53448ac10
8574 F20101209_AAAIFI kobylinski_k_Page_042thm.jpg
54577ec2b7d51b03b8b96bb78d18ab4b
0a3fc4cf5a2c307d2058008bc264e6a9a9fa03e0
8171 F20101209_AAAIET kobylinski_k_Page_147thm.jpg
38f26a01a869e913877d12a794927324
8ab1f8b9dffc3448a5ef205bbe0d7860dde2da3c
2184 F20101209_AAAHZN kobylinski_k_Page_058.txt
245dfabda98baf5d090bccc9e4bf79a0
d7767b4d33cf4ec58cafddd9b7a66600ea603bd0
2191 F20101209_AAAHYZ kobylinski_k_Page_041.txt
7cbbd1f566cb14483368ea2c6247e917
38f9d94e2d417ec78d514369aec3093bab4a5052
8182 F20101209_AAAGWL kobylinski_k_Page_117thm.jpg
a85f673cd9460d16580c3e13931851ac
1b873dce4df0b314a720762b951d00b52ec67f57
12333 F20101209_AAAGVX kobylinski_k_Page_101.pro
0cf0b4bf38d4dded253adb6b7d2abb4b
d1bdd29f3af93e32cd8170a8ef9473e72b219022
120000 F20101209_AAAHCG kobylinski_k_Page_074.jp2
bf714527cd9bd7a300d021aa4d2dc47f
07d31f09f6460aa4b9b8c315db40efe95ce9b61b
F20101209_AAAHBR kobylinski_k_Page_033.tif
f2f97f65c1ab414af4b3b46c3c3d838c
c1877d2fd176499bfc9cde67c526f77f0054fe59
2586 F20101209_AAAIFJ kobylinski_k_Page_112thm.jpg
678f086cbee59d21b92535ceba996c7d
5ea1b4ed1dd5fafe7465e9f8d1d3641c0b52f3a2
36886 F20101209_AAAIEU kobylinski_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
4c08c7c96ce2ef198dcde1a19e73c7f0
761c095eb866f66fe99a365f7b2cae496509b3e5
2074 F20101209_AAAHZO kobylinski_k_Page_059.txt
98da4cc596a450b8690c97c460efc4f4
ab5ac32979a3024b759ad5ae8dec34ea16ec25ec
48564 F20101209_AAAGWM kobylinski_k_Page_031.pro
7b358d35455a85d1265405a25b8056ce
c3e47507fc8304215c545bb0bf08268ad7f1ed6d
950 F20101209_AAAGVY kobylinski_k_Page_126.txt
545a85abebb3e1ab85fddc71f9084097
6ee64dd6de9671e57e026857ecdca352f171d63b
1051974 F20101209_AAAHCH kobylinski_k_Page_135.jp2
cde380fe9888d0fe8b53fdd14268a3be
587895d6ea27b9b86fa7e2fd30d12e35f49d61b7
114597 F20101209_AAAGXA kobylinski_k_Page_132.jp2
e2844f400449ff65d71a4f2856711218
048f8239b90f080456deddef58feea978327e779
143841 F20101209_AAAHBS kobylinski_k_Page_156.jpg
be2b8a231f9324b737bee19f9e064747
3f99b57991772d176ad75ea1f3268d0a077d82ca
2353 F20101209_AAAIFK kobylinski_k_Page_008thm.jpg
229151621bbaf3156ff03b4905f458d2
3ad225bc622ab96aa3d524248b354e96a8fea16f
3572 F20101209_AAAIEV kobylinski_k_Page_069thm.jpg
4a34ce84d9121c1ac4b220ab702733bd
868a771bc233bb4698255e85a798c092637949ce
678 F20101209_AAAHZP kobylinski_k_Page_063.txt
2dd2d98ce9b5cb6fd71544da23f0a3ba
88e43d9a657437da940f538bb0b077f074cb7ec3
2891 F20101209_AAAGWN kobylinski_k_Page_103.pro
4ab3790c286730ec4886e2fe1acb8eba
53b0441d3592c0828549f5cda4eba3a012b54847
969 F20101209_AAAGVZ kobylinski_k_Page_165.txt
378b864c43a29bb30ecd28cedd32ed7e
5c4b0c5240635324d2e42e640c71d7da1b38fb54
2049 F20101209_AAAHCI kobylinski_k_Page_061.txt
2efdc36fbf25972e63ea24e2a6b1e2e3
c7596e80471b35e1209d7f1d5ac90be96f5d8b1e
115813 F20101209_AAAGXB kobylinski_k_Page_080.jp2
9a8d404d4780e0c441fc823b6923fd01
d8784b7f674129cae5ca7abdfad6e57233ca02ce
35097 F20101209_AAAHBT kobylinski_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
fec8a1d6896d05c3c4db04599d52ba96
77e1c9f12049ae792729451d3411d5bfa99ebd01
8573 F20101209_AAAIEW kobylinski_k_Page_079thm.jpg
45310a82601bc87e45f3946b04b99800
3cc63612003789a51c90020e87e1e8c57f87b156
133 F20101209_AAAHZQ kobylinski_k_Page_064.txt
704d938a60339e7ee2c986a6a6256903
f5ebaa6081afa0b9835db4129024308b36b35178
F20101209_AAAGWO kobylinski_k_Page_091.tif
66376d168eb43d68e87929de23312fde
17c8e6ae0f0e9a113f3dd78e881777ebd9fc0979
19495 F20101209_AAAGXC kobylinski_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
ab1f5810833cf08f842b2846b2740c19
197eb3cc828e7787a0128a849f69bb692e9ee257
10744 F20101209_AAAHBU kobylinski_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
3b5833602986a9eb757da1ccc3896eef
1478c618862a90fff3aef81fb78ff0a27649ed93
10623 F20101209_AAAIGA kobylinski_k_Page_138.QC.jpg
44ab8b593c67742176e62de4ff697548
91329665fe0e528e904cabbfd6d4ce1912026a0d
24921 F20101209_AAAIFL kobylinski_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
c72f8524f31fe3d37df9bb80a71337a2
c6f1dc55893865a36c856dde968463bb845e5f71
36768 F20101209_AAAIEX kobylinski_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
e88974565ed6e5f48f6d2c928067c0ea
7982087ba9ac0dfd847892d2654fb362c393dbac
372 F20101209_AAAHZR kobylinski_k_Page_065.txt
7038d63839ccf4578502bce4be901a01
e4d4c1529e28be4582b5561d7be03b676e53f99d
F20101209_AAAGWP kobylinski_k_Page_035.tif
c20874ba67533882353de4d793c6dedb
3265fb1a8688bbe16e8d3996384e6c29731421ff
104926 F20101209_AAAHCJ kobylinski_k_Page_057.jpg
b333cbfd9653c52601dd8c141d4ed1ff
808ee01e57e65b37ea250a52ed36c746c3f3c6aa
52598 F20101209_AAAGXD kobylinski_k_Page_107.pro
69f5a805da69f8678788a4ac8e8a9079
c870deac5ee06588c114df30d57342ca3a0f5927
9964 F20101209_AAAHBV kobylinski_k_Page_142.QC.jpg
81c304102f59e0fc4a5f7463cf510050
490f82e66d32dde5b0dd793256b05c30800f6003
34268 F20101209_AAAIGB kobylinski_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
953db3a9bdb05f090553bb28661a7680
37df1b1e9b5c97a9018df69e77bcaa3e0e5da2d4
11646 F20101209_AAAIFM kobylinski_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
16ba9d6abaa21c3b9b5e6ab32862c5a3
4b507fb778c0a817d560c13f238b8c9c76e25949
9245 F20101209_AAAIEY kobylinski_k_Page_151thm.jpg
f2c4d04c888a71d1c34dad4f5ed372f0
563c50dec50715a10ea7488e2b685221c26b3597
245 F20101209_AAAHZS kobylinski_k_Page_066.txt
3794bcdee44eb012418c064d90ffde67
888e92e98daf9460a08c032c56fcbe18861f02f7
117855 F20101209_AAAGWQ kobylinski_k_Page_021.jp2
277a5071a1968aaa44484b06ab834460
5a4d5604772ad8da26fc9f0f4820dd43e7a12346
8765 F20101209_AAAHCK kobylinski_k_Page_021thm.jpg
5866353038fb71fcb7a3917dbc58df95
25b9f4907493dc2f21c0c5c4b17bfac1b854b812
8796 F20101209_AAAGXE kobylinski_k_Page_054thm.jpg
31796e626b94db24192432d6a3855cfe
ac4e3eff5ed5d6808698d52844ddb06469abad37
119818 F20101209_AAAHBW kobylinski_k_Page_033.jp2
1a385c726dc8652eefea9f7587b3cb51
e249e18408dc6f76323dc1092e4b5abb23cdcf6d
36640 F20101209_AAAIGC kobylinski_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
b224308311952671b22eb9671aaf2bd2
6968bdef84610fca08904926ce65360c165024e8
14732 F20101209_AAAIFN kobylinski_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
534f68b26e2d64c3287b24f0978c56d8
9fd59b8ca267a6eae286f8cf7bc3a6778c2801b7
39781 F20101209_AAAIEZ kobylinski_k_Page_155.QC.jpg
daf6c0a24a7582d95e88622545569423
6bb25943e641aed16ac1987478ea10fc615f0946
305 F20101209_AAAHZT kobylinski_k_Page_067.txt
7c0f853b313d4847213bd1dfdd7a8658
160ecd7509315dc9f36e9a63f14e660962885ed6
8310 F20101209_AAAGWR kobylinski_k_Page_120thm.jpg
c948de15be8714959aa6ed363121faab
9b6a71c63698709a5b18bacc43de56cfd2bb219e
37425 F20101209_AAAHDA kobylinski_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
51610adfae4f875efeada31cf404fcd9
12755a037774b50e2f354c7b794e380422b600e1
8365 F20101209_AAAHCL kobylinski_k_Page_028thm.jpg
6490ae3825d576ba24837b2c8f2fb651
032a12a03932e87273732bb5d32ed1a2155b44f0
8425398 F20101209_AAAGXF kobylinski_k_Page_071.tif
b84a659a5967e06c428aa87b6b020a01
18e0f5af667d32adef0977a4894e7ca711643ac8
21851 F20101209_AAAHBX kobylinski_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
8a1516523577b8956522346c69917ada
ae170751beec0323c27e2aa38a37c33629a28a5d
35616 F20101209_AAAIGD kobylinski_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
6fcf1bfa170e6f04374814b2760457f4
60d9abd9359a9b7947d3b39b1ed1c19338968b05
11406 F20101209_AAAIFO kobylinski_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
9e46a8d05547d9e61b9aefee630fa5d0
3835ba9d8878e0320032732ab79974873acd585c
625 F20101209_AAAHZU kobylinski_k_Page_069.txt
9e1d5aff2702ce9b6155dcc43ce21d50
170991a5d2c0aeb77ff37cd12728d606ef21d1b5
112139 F20101209_AAAGWS kobylinski_k_Page_114.jp2
4cb9e08acb7d30aa87780c0d36ae82c0
7a3b5a06f93ac68596992f22e1360f0a199e41ac
34564 F20101209_AAAHDB kobylinski_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
17c828b4300208a9278ac3b40fd0ee19
b6344d0f68ce348e45bd4275aeed57d966e7af76
90001 F20101209_AAAHCM kobylinski_k_Page_063.jpg
465d5b977a513620e44eec7124122d54
71899fd57b022ec6f2ab530eac85cbd68623aa9c
F20101209_AAAGXG kobylinski_k_Page_008.tif
bccbbb9cce869f5ac4d3d4ed2a00a50d
900a6ef25ff806452ba0529f2bc6294627180fc6
2020 F20101209_AAAHBY kobylinski_k_Page_094.txt
9a045359be7bbeb8eba24ac780b57a84
9d8081172abead137f0da3aaaed31bde1ca2ac44
8802 F20101209_AAAIGE kobylinski_k_Page_052thm.jpg
c8f0f6a2dff0ea43ed29eacf261b1e80
0d34a54ef79f41dce67d3e8f9addd779ce049e73
15545 F20101209_AAAIFP kobylinski_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
c5294a1ff92e37da4d963210e401ed7e
48700246bc4999e9635076e35ad676fedce2b80a
336 F20101209_AAAHZV kobylinski_k_Page_070.txt
c745c8ebaf97eba00963c00fb58c7892
c4141b9b03c1a92f6a3ae92c5dea76d4af789b1a
F20101209_AAAGWT kobylinski_k_Page_078.txt
da33094596cbcbb9bdd1d5ca14d89da2
8cbab620dbbaa31218e34a7397400f269563e98a
66698 F20101209_AAAHDC kobylinski_k_Page_164.pro
083d52881e77f1b628575011db7c6f5d
92d90938d3c3c0ec96500ce2fd247c38afd13dce
64604 F20101209_AAAHCN kobylinski_k_Page_163.pro
694119910902f27bf669193991cca549
a48fb6a68fa9c28dbd22c92f30e079acba663a2e
104451 F20101209_AAAGXH kobylinski_k_Page_039.jpg
1e4889bc3594f3e95583e474cf19acee
fa505828f0d375b74b170eba0e22ea2344fb8d1d
40627 F20101209_AAAHBZ kobylinski_k_Page_161.QC.jpg
2302a2b894584e52cf2f685dca6d3fa4
45bdfb4af056d272aab860f9f734fae053661a6e
4951 F20101209_AAAIGF kobylinski_k_Page_006thm.jpg
c6c9495aaffa95ec676fa8fa3b526163
3f6509b7e3a94302cf5294bbdc0e5399b98f11f3
6085 F20101209_AAAIFQ kobylinski_k_Page_166thm.jpg
cdbe30e8368c5b279839a6d889e97987
efcbd00951deeef4976c7d40b4cae7937a985664
2131 F20101209_AAAHZW kobylinski_k_Page_072.txt
70c44428e1d5dcfeed5b1047ce753afd
10969b4ed52ed0b1812c852fc87ff603f7c72712
15749 F20101209_AAAGWU kobylinski_k_Page_113.pro
5df16ad3e234e87420599b32db14b19e
a893a7c2e641336a1a41d27eabdfe8c71576a76f
112346 F20101209_AAAHDD kobylinski_k_Page_054.jp2
3889ff1926e4b618f9b209eacc43e6d8
c6f4f97eb6aaabf474d3a32b01ca4aed2a85915d
8529 F20101209_AAAHCO kobylinski_k_Page_078thm.jpg
c438d688029b40081b002b28dc936868
f529bafc70fef9d82100d41c9654fd9b20a9835b
110332 F20101209_AAAGXI kobylinski_k_Page_058.jpg
f1599f1340943eb23c684e5ab9d95807
3ba6193ca5abfdfe0fb552d7a2e0b0d1ecc368cc
2736 F20101209_AAAIGG kobylinski_k_Page_086thm.jpg
9ca42c2e40132927d7cc4393a41a9881
7b3a827d349fb419fa1156cd2d96068377e8d5c7
11503 F20101209_AAAIFR kobylinski_k_Page_139.QC.jpg
529f35d49a95ad16d0be76b5a87abcf0
bbde2403d4fa557380368f8af65899a8229df59e
F20101209_AAAHZX kobylinski_k_Page_073.txt
4a24c7e637da566513655736bbee47be
3042c71e82bf1d8aceae02a790ef42421ffe4a54
29890 F20101209_AAAGWV kobylinski_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
7032db18b74beca9d2036b92f071f0e3
559e04efe30fb53db96233e3bf0a738b84e8a6a6
51101 F20101209_AAAHDE kobylinski_k_Page_059.pro
37ba4f551e1af56caa89e373f3f4a57e
392c6b7425318a4a9a11b6a2b62e40e0fee58f86
2722 F20101209_AAAHCP kobylinski_k_Page_155.txt
0f9551fcaa89125dd4640aef57a2042e
37b809b2eec93306ae00543487d067569a7f1c16
112040 F20101209_AAAGXJ kobylinski_k_Page_011.jpg
456b508573ce10577c9a964366dbf63a
22e300a144b884d406662a6a1406d7b49d02cd26
7964 F20101209_AAAIGH kobylinski_k_Page_031thm.jpg
eeed4600876387a53e12c7df332d2ffb
586615acea638f42fbe181093fa6a8fbd531c9dd
6548 F20101209_AAAIFS kobylinski_k_Page_063thm.jpg
ddd7c627c7e1850005065ecc808320f8
6d51137efd0e5da60797d368e467b27a257c6781
2135 F20101209_AAAHZY kobylinski_k_Page_074.txt
be945be0e6eb47cbfba9a0974f50ebd4
2a09a2a9638049aa6a708f0575a3eb0044d3558e
8985 F20101209_AAAGWW kobylinski_k_Page_077thm.jpg
75e767dde69a84fcdeebbdab3cac96be
6a7e777061ceebb6a38a1cb9b87c39b84b9b26ea
34818 F20101209_AAAHDF kobylinski_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
d1dddb27bc0e82dc9db1d7358ed64f7e
3cd035a3db59173f13038c16b7f7da22e4afe8fa
119860 F20101209_AAAHCQ kobylinski_k_Page_023.jp2
4fcc39b3b41a495f4df2bce9d19f223b
dcc171467825c4d885539db0f6906539cbd2c1de
F20101209_AAAGXK kobylinski_k_Page_148.tif
d862c778694021a115b562ab4dab6b3d
3dac93d78e4c339b9f34c44c42c02ac4fb63864f
9572 F20101209_AAAIGI kobylinski_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
7688c666a84c97dea68a2260f84f8ea2
8548940bc619fa526b21248bf83ddedbb09a3fca
34488 F20101209_AAAIFT kobylinski_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
edc074d12699661f87d93e8a4e77b715
f36be2c8a7d14e3bfe2272355280bdd4d8fb8916
2056 F20101209_AAAHZZ kobylinski_k_Page_076.txt
396e0248c23ba1207b71bb153fd79496
5396382b81f697f2082479b0bbe2fb29a2b051b0
586 F20101209_AAAGWX kobylinski_k_Page_139.txt
fb656df8a292ae6fb3b90b1a8387d36f
4548004e537c5dd3f72e41c0cd2a1d151eb208c2
2697 F20101209_AAAHDG kobylinski_k_Page_068thm.jpg
0a89923ace399869b628b0ac4d3e9ab6
89f59e2336c342d4129172a50fe8db968a506e72
61721 F20101209_AAAHCR kobylinski_k_Page_087.jpg
c27b04e0d5d31444d2dfc666529bb813
222a356f4fd85338ebb28b63e0d9222f13190ca7
F20101209_AAAGXL kobylinski_k_Page_002thm.jpg
d10779990c274e7eaed7082d46581d8f
2cd9c8e0db349ff12e5559bef99ff9077491c662
38789 F20101209_AAAIGJ kobylinski_k_Page_160.QC.jpg
2b84c9c00643bfec4036aeb287a3c21f
bf1b46625ca82d068c7989b7340f18d2fac3cc57
36797 F20101209_AAAIFU kobylinski_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
ea4449a6911899f7b8a4cc96ecce032e
04b1c9fbe84a5f1b496bbc1be7fd1bdcd5e7f690
F20101209_AAAGWY kobylinski_k_Page_006.tif
fab02b760f95824e51d4b8e557ef809a
9b04e73c686ebf99612897fdeb5ee0c8408ab57a
99149 F20101209_AAAHDH kobylinski_k_Page_105.jpg
722703901147f3d9336adf4f04b3968b
ad9e4aa8b20044af5c0909a4a33a23533c7deb4e
F20101209_AAAGYA kobylinski_k_Page_041.tif
89a94b8a2e46bd9295b3aa59ab07c201
6e94b7cf918c35107344e3c62ffa517906011b36
109933 F20101209_AAAHCS kobylinski_k_Page_115.jp2
80e2d14cb37813f7c761f0d8da1fc1e4
710023f728af40f6a69e2713298621d89ac8bad0
76002 F20101209_AAAGXM kobylinski_k_Page_166.jpg
d1925b3f55f2a29079757f54e9ad54bb
bb43124f8e89554477be340b801fd283e41abd42
8560 F20101209_AAAIGK kobylinski_k_Page_131thm.jpg
338aeac041a6321fe239fc2e16f362a7
3d6fce6e86cbfe28f0da93019287ddf4cdd2abcb
19823 F20101209_AAAIFV kobylinski_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
da3c42983c6b6083df6371a293f95e85
e3a3a9eae1c321ca0a76c2495b55170ff1016734
8517 F20101209_AAAGWZ kobylinski_k_Page_115thm.jpg
de9f6db8ba7b0468612a93eafab78057
386dc851ef4566eb8e04de6c4a2c572a64715ce9
F20101209_AAAHDI kobylinski_k_Page_097.tif
910939e322351b72f4d62c813d82ef0d
7023c4c391b5e9a5f4983787dc8cfd70f33d6294
2607 F20101209_AAAGYB kobylinski_k_Page_154.txt
0f9acdd24851bcd8b58a7efbc27edbcb
73fc86af6585b960ecb4fbf4ad7043df72bffad8
64287 F20101209_AAAHCT kobylinski_k_Page_122.jp2
908ebfe0e9cf0daf9d1cc7284dc99724
f4b99c4a5834c473e0edea30f72d5206bf2687e7
32768 F20101209_AAAGXN kobylinski_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
20051d329fe878a0087f06252a199619
390733071181c85e82c1f5d6a59565a9502b8e69
F20101209_AAAIGL kobylinski_k_Page_098thm.jpg
d59b91be0550e56e3fffeddad507f6f8
5e952a1b83aaf77c52eec657e50d2474de09df55
2543 F20101209_AAAIFW kobylinski_k_Page_125thm.jpg
232c54d3e81860bb2ba439d14e30ae17
95cdeaad809b5a5fd728fd44e368a151cb2fc793
9166 F20101209_AAAHDJ kobylinski_k_Page_024thm.jpg
e101d400190f66ee257774ac94efda89
cf3c8544067b1a48e07b59048e865f3c77bc8c11
F20101209_AAAGYC kobylinski_k_Page_093.tif
b1daf7e21f436bd518f6a421b3824a35
484c29daa97a6cfe2d7015fbbb5359bcd1ea8497
20292 F20101209_AAAHCU kobylinski_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
a975d1fa9d78471cdab34aaf52507f32
433630eb6328351bb0e40428ed5e17768596c5cc
1054428 F20101209_AAAGXO kobylinski_k_Page_127.tif
5a6d7caaf597ad2752d12a350c52c38e
0376f0e1d824bce1cbd930783d08396fa44e787f
9907 F20101209_AAAIHA kobylinski_k_Page_157thm.jpg
f6a1b0849ec0096a70f14954a82ea345
02c3c764d799cd83cf074aef77a1a0cf65773cb4
3058 F20101209_AAAIFX kobylinski_k_Page_123thm.jpg
f645baab0c8e2f4434856256fe70ff79
626252fcadef7c2d4b9f1ecd25ce371667a4ebdb
8760 F20101209_AAAGYD kobylinski_k_Page_041thm.jpg
751d0215a4ffc946086a21b82e12208a
4e08251ae48484add3f3f57885257e53c5942fe7
4707 F20101209_AAAHCV kobylinski_k_Page_005.txt
6b51af91399d634a00c7e3f5256d722a
17e3da4ae5524b4dc92f23f7e2f2391558a7ca00
69745 F20101209_AAAGXP kobylinski_k_Page_156.pro
fda6e907d5c3e79dbe2974ee06ab3b94
11b95bf640965e686af984b95bef456e853006b6
22610 F20101209_AAAIHB kobylinski_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
212ef219f84d954ca20d85c47880bfb7
4d8109e25739299254c6fd75979b22d8d05b1212
9932 F20101209_AAAIGM kobylinski_k_Page_160thm.jpg
a5c20f667147294661ec3aee3f779913
470fcb0bdf175c93f33e29fb961e8ce75af0e830
37384 F20101209_AAAIFY kobylinski_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
42a8e4577ca9969a1508d9467d3435e8
0e7701fe18b8c946d22eb735139f8fd6517e3e96
2725 F20101209_AAAHDK kobylinski_k_Page_149.txt
c4af42a92eca742dfb5d81c9c0c9bcfa
6c7f2dc720ae1400b797c2b3ae2afbc1e3676352
9024 F20101209_AAAGYE kobylinski_k_Page_060thm.jpg
9b4808346322d73160dfa7f730c8aa49
941969755cacbdcfcc9e1fe04c140f905da5534d
107314 F20101209_AAAHCW kobylinski_k_Page_147.jp2
da2c74a080ddd3e4df12de7298704781
174606392fcd5d26b262262ef641f528b7faf84a
16680 F20101209_AAAGXQ kobylinski_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
595b93ed41924a1c6559499c24b66efe
b3feece7b3ef1b42c8d87ed2e22e076494c2bbe1
37475 F20101209_AAAIHC kobylinski_k_Page_153.QC.jpg
19031c68ee621330b6c284267ee86d08
f1176440fb0f47cf8aff3d1e3fb4890993773f0d
12416 F20101209_AAAIGN kobylinski_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
39c232dcbd8aa0b1dead3a0abf487ee7
fefc50b51179c829daacbc58a87ddbb4ef76d2d7
8775 F20101209_AAAIFZ kobylinski_k_Page_044thm.jpg
671a9eeb41ae9513762b6bed6e44b0b1
646320c22b6a0e42bc44f2af06e264a216b14471
114738 F20101209_AAAHDL kobylinski_k_Page_017.jpg
f2a046cdc329448593831822a18902ec
945577c928eb88895478ce949d69731cd96cfa6f
51815 F20101209_AAAGYF kobylinski_k_Page_097.pro
d86510c189f16c11414dbd014966b476
37861b236c222c21c9ba8b3599b2f5ed96e32ebd
105227 F20101209_AAAHCX kobylinski_k_Page_146.jp2
14ca14dcc3217919a1950ad981db2838
123215bb29d3b588897470bb89ea509edbb16666
35132 F20101209_AAAGXR kobylinski_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
8cf4550c3af288450bbdcc016136c0ae
cad9e7f7b30737d58d808838864755a2e59e7bf5
109385 F20101209_AAAHEA kobylinski_k_Page_015.jpg
2ef5830a4882a92ca57a9c096e9a8757
a1b564a3244d863dc5d0b158fd48dcfb307bb772
36741 F20101209_AAAIHD kobylinski_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
809fbd7f412eddd59d1bfa69f13d9ac5
d7713734bbcb66cb5a6a38727054053c364db2d7
F20101209_AAAIGO kobylinski_k_Page_075thm.jpg
646b0d15e6f3ae351f92aa3baa9c00e4
48d40459ba2d3011f1134756ed29056029019d69
10063 F20101209_AAAHDM kobylinski_k_Page_071.pro
6457c69c3113cd69350d2aa9eeb209b9
976276b08cf9695c405e385d29aae121e532db42
16517 F20101209_AAAGYG kobylinski_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
2e3f78b444a80eca0be81acd53cb4928
2549408d8141a7447ac4e836d459686688c406ee
24707 F20101209_AAAHCY kobylinski_k_Page_166.QC.jpg
f6c085fb0d09a9e980679b5d08073de6
53d07617c166ad606340ee597397047ac9206b8a
107224 F20101209_AAAGXS kobylinski_k_Page_076.jpg
38b7943ea28eec774aca380c2683cb33
6745a4a8acef7b44bb66c06a91fe30945d10ba52
112418 F20101209_AAAHEB kobylinski_k_Page_016.jpg
31cb05342ff4010db0614b453c8c7316
9015c439493d7cf96e6f83b2f017c102ef308bcc
F20101209_AAAIHE kobylinski_k_Page_074thm.jpg
a78120b767a4f13efcbc8d5abf7ff968
0dfa09d341ef0e7779771b01da142d23bf4706ca
8580 F20101209_AAAIGP kobylinski_k_Page_055thm.jpg
daa5d53024b1d843d17b64718fac6d99
58a3cb87a35dce4ffe68e0f649b02583dc745437
194889 F20101209_AAAHDN UFE0017601_00001.mets FULL
d9b04eb6ed32123946259703cd68bff9
33d4bbf8c4c6ef0d04b9218b8fcb23ec841c253b
34578 F20101209_AAAGYH kobylinski_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
08d0eb5e76d286ef5073661e790fd628
699f879772ed6906bf3206954ab73584720a5f26
F20101209_AAAHCZ kobylinski_k_Page_152.tif
eedbeba89565323f3c3b871c02e0c105
f1dab640c70a26dad24d7cdc4e27fc5c0ac61049
F20101209_AAAGXT kobylinski_k_Page_023.tif
0959423b85a4ec2d1e259c50023e8606
590141e2a212752b3fe4e237683185ab16c0c281
106918 F20101209_AAAHEC kobylinski_k_Page_018.jpg
a11d76bb6bfd89e654ffff6d176dd02b
d51f509477b01504518cafb04c7255c49813c3cc
35443 F20101209_AAAIHF kobylinski_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
acc5d302c9246332023469deaa227bb0
55aa9a0f058e30b83d563c1a7d00364eac8b7cbb
8397 F20101209_AAAIGQ kobylinski_k_Page_057thm.jpg
0da053a771dbef645b0c39d10ce76b44
ea7199f650c4046fe05a42f02f882870db3ce7f7
5026 F20101209_AAAGYI kobylinski_k_Page_121thm.jpg
7587c48f90272229eec905dfe7f02d94
7ed36191b71aa77861c921eecee795cedf9322ab
121209 F20101209_AAAGXU kobylinski_k_Page_060.jp2
67a46b5a64bb351f2cddfb40452783bc
4939566ae647025cabce2195d8bbfbde87897f2c
113977 F20101209_AAAHED kobylinski_k_Page_019.jpg
7e6c77bae91659d7c075303bfe66a42f
c87c0ee78e5c6933f501111c5ab03eaabb47c3ba
36042 F20101209_AAAIHG kobylinski_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
1bbcc18124430cd75645c5657f85ffe1
e8af3c2f2df0ed474b93a9907ba2d719c63779e4
8852 F20101209_AAAIGR kobylinski_k_Page_033thm.jpg
45795b4f89f17ebf547a8e837db9f33d
b57e9a435fc011f64db886bf9df66e0826eab743
16727 F20101209_AAAGYJ kobylinski_k_Page_066.jpg
661786701c7b52fe18efbf91256e8548
04c0f3135709753e275cda9135dc94ff7d1d0022
39173 F20101209_AAAGXV kobylinski_k_Page_152.QC.jpg
6ae14faef00c729df1f19bce15fedd56
4c0457b68ec30939fa1767e31886a3f897de88d3
109931 F20101209_AAAHEE kobylinski_k_Page_020.jpg
3f621b02dec8ea3c67b23a68cbd0347b
8a2dd6b6ac488b1ba67963be31c3bfb29bee2259
35836 F20101209_AAAIHH kobylinski_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
1143e5722fff87bc801a28f5627e55ec
ad268b1c9e670aac6c8e4bf95977e089c8e5567c
8242 F20101209_AAAIGS kobylinski_k_Page_039thm.jpg
8f2224e313408145075987704cdf4320
3ca7245e0c1b759ec980828aaf92f36f7eea2402
32852 F20101209_AAAHDQ kobylinski_k_Page_001.jpg
ca19c5665d7b6a8c7f44f82849268ec8
101603368a890b8f449f735fe21fb225e2af2881
F20101209_AAAGYK kobylinski_k_Page_107thm.jpg
f8bb7105895d825e589579351b82790b
6d4602845266cfd85dcfff1ccb662238d349260f
111421 F20101209_AAAGXW kobylinski_k_Page_118.jpg
90ea3c9d3ba916fe706e2789c14c395e
84f97ad20568aac3004b3415c0663c7b7d6698b9
109239 F20101209_AAAHEF kobylinski_k_Page_021.jpg
5e3b6088507ed50a9ba351635daed86f
34f8fcbf08f132d79185659986b567e6a1482f96
10031 F20101209_AAAIHI kobylinski_k_Page_150thm.jpg
c54b1a953480eda056bc4ab8554535b5
baeb7c106fde82541f3dbd2ec0f68c1c9822ce80
8891 F20101209_AAAIGT kobylinski_k_Page_137.QC.jpg
53c80807dd7b8676e32796c8cc1f82b5
411d281ca86975f3f7efaf7b63a40b36cd7235ec
52986 F20101209_AAAGZA kobylinski_k_Page_053.pro
5b46146205883d6eca08f444c327f779
90e6c8ec5ba68c732978bf4b1cfedb4f33f3239e
80855 F20101209_AAAHDR kobylinski_k_Page_003.jpg
089d4d555acc340176f241e752e557a1
731c90bc98563d2a64815c2721eccbf59e9e3788
120589 F20101209_AAAGYL kobylinski_k_Page_035.jp2
8fa5f054f8cfe3ee4ad6f93d4f4cc5f0
fdf76aa35c2adb900947c54b2df07617e007d0dd
102971 F20101209_AAAGXX kobylinski_k_Page_094.jpg
a6dc5df2600a7ece04aba8b5182be1aa
5eb8d598eee9fd4f891964e28d9b6f29f897bea2
113236 F20101209_AAAHEG kobylinski_k_Page_023.jpg
f4cf26d923a205acca22d37abae82280
946b041c84f0becf80de126f8c3e2709167cd8ba
8367 F20101209_AAAIHJ kobylinski_k_Page_109thm.jpg
d717513de12ac271a41da0a81b51f694
ae9f99837cf507ca0fdf226c577631ce84083054
9668 F20101209_AAAIGU kobylinski_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
74f9bda3a913bf315f4ac7066ef936b6
ebb2de7f4cf77cacc08622849e05a5e2b99174cd
122011 F20101209_AAAHDS kobylinski_k_Page_004.jpg
1ede20127fa990d8f08bd61f9a307a9c
747a8e3746e0241c75f7527ae71fd8a91012af11
1925 F20101209_AAAGYM kobylinski_k_Page_065thm.jpg
7e1fecff4d3068546d2ca6b189158379
3df2b23118380ade03bcc049179449d04f17ad81
35417 F20101209_AAAGXY kobylinski_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
f38caffa568a1d17919bf8864f791b9e
eda7c15e3c3a8a52c50f3e68bb0c949c5d9968f2
112986 F20101209_AAAHEH kobylinski_k_Page_024.jpg
52e8441dabb79cb20d71eaee286e8429
7048adaa56384eeb1f16daa3c959f5f8e7def85d
8377 F20101209_AAAIHK kobylinski_k_Page_128thm.jpg
08c673ac648e4c17a6c47b0d83bbca5f
a7cf6e0b24ce5ff7bfb1410fed444df2d30e9e28
8582 F20101209_AAAIGV kobylinski_k_Page_095thm.jpg
fe55bf334e1a8f5818688ecaabcfb00b
59b9beabddd1e42befc8a393542ad4b80d5875c5
35033 F20101209_AAAGZB kobylinski_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
e2602b43badb77934ae9b162b37c8e26
20cca1f31da1e1ab1a95cc64089979611b7f71aa
126272 F20101209_AAAHDT kobylinski_k_Page_005.jpg
55c578a655223a557b2601b6f751bc39
7e7fdcd60b6ba446c27561ad4abee019849e4116
65003 F20101209_AAAGYN kobylinski_k_Page_134.jp2
9d5bcf7b17ef04b74a2198e40a4309c2
9c907dfff829a7cb644ed6b2e2b4a262e6ac5713
105436 F20101209_AAAGXZ kobylinski_k_Page_036.jpg
d4d74b8d523ce621992b360ee6400f05
613da4ff9a1c9099f787b5fb84d9c8a14e4ed92c
107389 F20101209_AAAHEI kobylinski_k_Page_025.jpg
d8f6b131e02078859e13a05285c66bf9
791f577d93f11d97bf6a8506966bb97b760c22e6
F20101209_AAAIHL kobylinski_k_Page_045thm.jpg
02ea9e7ae2dc342856ab412aa3f30f75
584d6972032883c2086c80ed0051f082a4ce4476
35823 F20101209_AAAIGW kobylinski_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
621e64d0757141a52a501fc8b6d03075
b33a1fabac135b8d00adf5fd64080c7c39fa7680
90501 F20101209_AAAHDU kobylinski_k_Page_006.jpg
054a2e98daf1b217d7cc68238ba804e1
daaaf05e7960051e9fab207162922618f44bb799
9293 F20101209_AAAGYO kobylinski_k_Page_163thm.jpg
1503a53f2d40281801b60b3071886fb4
e3b33da303ce29188cc5dccacc79185c412b37fb
103373 F20101209_AAAHEJ kobylinski_k_Page_026.jpg
36d2c65125fcaf7ce5c7856c880554e5
cf26f98a9abb02cbf38b41652792549a53f9843f
108848 F20101209_AAAGZC kobylinski_k_Page_082.jpg
dcbc741c9c4d0fc7e6ac31bebf1f5a0b
a5044db05c82cc91023fa8ec81d0e5d3cb2ce0c3
9258 F20101209_AAAIIA kobylinski_k_Page_051thm.jpg
e70aa2e129171bcfe82f3866b224ca90
9ec97bb3bc25a04a25fba5d4fccca0c5e81641f9
34438 F20101209_AAAIHM kobylinski_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
54f704911f29b1599c8be8b0a05061f1
5153b3be32ffc490aab4aef9511edc36d7cd30bf
36606 F20101209_AAAIGX kobylinski_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
e2b04f2a53d956ac017c4c67a61f00fb
b09150d42e365e3bc06ecb12b2c4f982f68b1b7a
117953 F20101209_AAAHDV kobylinski_k_Page_007.jpg
15c97d6971f5dfb119d801c8c2703080
9db8c6a3e7ec5ea640431e414d953d07f1b50e59
55427 F20101209_AAAGYP kobylinski_k_Page_033.pro
0bc50aa7632e9491140e8444c4bc5623
756bc47454444ca9a6be3168e6b75854b9066c99
104062 F20101209_AAAHEK kobylinski_k_Page_027.jpg
5796fbbf8243ad9aa62c7bc28bb192cb
cde0dda39764a7c4fcbe8c5cb0dab24c1851b24b
136075 F20101209_AAAGZD kobylinski_k_Page_159.jp2
426a0339ea92218686b164fb9dd1d55d
8444400b7e140d34e89b0eaa2a58460c231d22b5
9033 F20101209_AAAIIB kobylinski_k_Page_011thm.jpg
ec2d2d78b7f0fa012d455d3bd148d1f3
dd01273afcb8ea6569b8bb733fd6e6e3de4d7bc4
35441 F20101209_AAAIGY kobylinski_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
3c382ff06423cf5bdca11c716702a300
76d1eef46e61443d2d8269f0a2885306c1ab2bbb
30148 F20101209_AAAHDW kobylinski_k_Page_008.jpg
018a1b3958709ada3b1e9567f68a07c7
c61ce80be4f026db9d3a635c39bddc3ec2846da7
835 F20101209_AAAGYQ kobylinski_k_Page_049.txt
90c5330965c91c6390b5d7e3b6b402be
6eae83df4dc3131ca27edf574b66be1cd0341188
2066 F20101209_AAAGZE kobylinski_k_Page_080.txt
5390f0d19771e7c6a958d65691c39eff
5dda19f8a17ed6a0f3c752487e91ed5be7529ca9
35021 F20101209_AAAIIC kobylinski_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
4618bde7418edc6921eb1307a8fd9922
cc1aa5f12375750b9198e079d897c8b121ac5b2e
32969 F20101209_AAAIHN kobylinski_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
403023831ed4b02cc32c4acf7856ec6f
6a98e27f648350013ee342c0a7ec74faef6fa438
11397 F20101209_AAAIGZ kobylinski_k_Page_140.QC.jpg
cd6c80f99f756fd86c81ad63d9dff11e
ea29450159421ca495b7670f172bd282fe692f86
91880 F20101209_AAAHDX kobylinski_k_Page_010.jpg
804f5c6dab1401469d9a6b6c6f003ee2
6b77267faf009b63904c2fe0f83f7e3b8f45e356
1310 F20101209_AAAGYR kobylinski_k_Page_062.txt
57e210e590ef4a8d8aa6bdd53402d162
19a999056a28d06f923069d62525b8036f968817
101887 F20101209_AAAHFA kobylinski_k_Page_050.jpg
e25a15904ce3be8e443c7e2440d70761
4545b414a20b6c2e9b6c7710a812575f8ae073f6
107164 F20101209_AAAHEL kobylinski_k_Page_028.jpg
efd7507f5280620f628f07fa09e9aac0
473bd9122956cbdbcf3f10826526e6d4f9f2ef22
55967 F20101209_AAAGZF kobylinski_k_Page_041.pro
35ae2bb0120ca44ba36b769b6c801c11
f8dbc583971af8bff26cdb3638dd1b94a228385e
10426 F20101209_AAAIID kobylinski_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
6ed320106d721cf3d462ae5b0a34a0c5
aeae211a04cc20ebfaeabf1161a01884d9f43da4
5739 F20101209_AAAIHO kobylinski_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
e53a73a8e98ac03c132a34aa0f3221a7
db08a53421e09ffa78aa620d4587d50cfd8f1ad3
107030 F20101209_AAAHDY kobylinski_k_Page_013.jpg
5442d19f2731a17d688ca6c1bc3d9c9e
5f668d3f5d806a635ef02bd4009d1060b30d2fe7
1051948 F20101209_AAAGYS kobylinski_k_Page_007.jp2
5e1c5db108a10bdc002c84a58e8e037d
dd68bdf2b304ede68669801a4f5618d0b775bf96
113150 F20101209_AAAHFB kobylinski_k_Page_051.jpg
3f7a529f95c57554756fc74735357a92
f727e48043690ddf73b87fa082c0a1f69561ced9
113763 F20101209_AAAHEM kobylinski_k_Page_029.jpg
392ba5ecdc3b65fc44159b897bc2d3b7
ac0892849d589c7c5d0335d15dbe986199f0a13c
107735 F20101209_AAAGZG kobylinski_k_Page_030.jpg
689b44a204731590cc0d116db4b91890
68f8f5060dfc6d5685e5e67c9da24bd913b2b487
8605 F20101209_AAAIIE kobylinski_k_Page_091thm.jpg
272edc09ee884359a6b08a52289bb9dc
41054b130e8948d96c8fce5014f2968d28532494
34191 F20101209_AAAIHP kobylinski_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
e5e231a164b9e51e73272b4374dc8758
00fbaae8b6a606e65e29012ce9bd62f57312c309
113664 F20101209_AAAHDZ kobylinski_k_Page_014.jpg
d0f59461743857abf1133ae45abc22f5
87a6167a71273b64449168f1adc39fabae398222
117529 F20101209_AAAGYT kobylinski_k_Page_073.jp2
880fbd0907cfb8b64a4a9cad900f8c56
a7475e262ccc498e589ad04c7b9ebcccc535c102
110868 F20101209_AAAHFC kobylinski_k_Page_052.jpg
cde9102f3eda7f3fd6071993b365308e
2de6da4b9800561db111b39686ace4342b4e601b
99232 F20101209_AAAHEN kobylinski_k_Page_031.jpg
45c4aa1804244b16486effe4933493af
b748e229384f92080a350ccac0aa27a1a9c88a28
111054 F20101209_AAAGZH kobylinski_k_Page_133.jpg
87e2718a0fc4487cb86bc3838d4e3566
f5c2be92e67f90be40ce8b17fe251de7efcb8663
36958 F20101209_AAAIIF kobylinski_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
4a0bf3961ad8ea8fb9da45109339bdcb
bf132bc729ef4b4895e8b6f1204a52cb14aadb5f
9439 F20101209_AAAIHQ kobylinski_k_Page_148thm.jpg
7ffaf19d08ac488e2bcc849a6fec45f8
3295eef0f412faab4dadf16eade2481a55a3b941
8136 F20101209_AAAGYU kobylinski_k_Page_105thm.jpg
828e77f5feaeb4b5bb1ac73ce3a6249f
c1692a2486fa7a2e431aca7fadbd5383636398b4
109084 F20101209_AAAHFD kobylinski_k_Page_053.jpg
bea4d4d5af1c9703ca00606d8eb6070c
cc12a1c898e72cce924ab7f2a0d3ad30692d02b0
107435 F20101209_AAAHEO kobylinski_k_Page_032.jpg
773f221f7f19982b441530e679611158
7db5f95ce0feec86f6817b44431fa33e348875e8
37400 F20101209_AAAGZI kobylinski_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
2e7e3e2f19367c2107a5e635fa7cbf30
29bbb2ff07d57cb739ddf52bad449960f3e383df
8864 F20101209_AAAIIG kobylinski_k_Page_059thm.jpg
0af94eb2a0b2e1375d9811a4567452de
65257e33295ec54809e188b47e551d2cace6138f
8735 F20101209_AAAIHR kobylinski_k_Page_072thm.jpg
5c78bdd486bc721e9b0b1e0546105473
dc2937cdd368095d7fbf8e0759b46cbb193165e2
6256 F20101209_AAAGYV kobylinski_k_Page_005thm.jpg
89ddf2cabff90db130a98a1553aa0822
02fe0ab39de59049060b64679d30b15f3dfeffb7
105567 F20101209_AAAHFE kobylinski_k_Page_054.jpg
99ddfe687cfe1a599e6777850769d75a
058e575c315c590b52526878aa99edbb4c175cee
111984 F20101209_AAAHEP kobylinski_k_Page_033.jpg
38a8e411b320bbf11844122959d013b1
263ee5df934e7fc8596b3d54c9b857c46b047f4b
8660 F20101209_AAAGZJ kobylinski_k_Page_013thm.jpg
8592bba0c5fa694933340d5b84e32a0f
52a33487fa6f049100f093465c05ad92cce5b6d4
36231 F20101209_AAAIIH kobylinski_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
2bfcf40571526659ac46bf16e43dc318
551f2d8a80edd6105a73d2efcdebe0285074ac6b
8770 F20101209_AAAIHS kobylinski_k_Page_022thm.jpg
33654237588bc387f2b4fa3a4ee33347
496d9284f4e4458c51fe329549537c4449ccfbd5
8622 F20101209_AAAGYW kobylinski_k_Page_038thm.jpg
5ed029791eee3316698c6dfbb29ece29
afd997571ad3e84574bab8a9b34d1f0a57a0eb29
111709 F20101209_AAAHFF kobylinski_k_Page_056.jpg
44802879eabae34812d0991efdf6915a
4736c49ef6f7922d7a155c410d2799e517888040
112850 F20101209_AAAHEQ kobylinski_k_Page_035.jpg
ff38bab4de27d606b20ba0c024743c4e
bdb536df5e84d077af39fec247785f792f1bb28b
33961 F20101209_AAAGZK kobylinski_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
3b84240e9cefd9872878421c3fbe592e
5d8e9ef3eb3eabdbd8b27f085659f04578c2ca74
35788 F20101209_AAAIII kobylinski_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
8613d35a573abd289ba00ed73cb00c9d
449502144493264b0d18137a3e43a93d4767383a
5562 F20101209_AAAIHT kobylinski_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
fd38f9590f298cd520bc4e5b64906916
476a86c92959baaefa58ad71770793e2a58fde68
2120 F20101209_AAAGYX kobylinski_k_Page_016.txt
df914cc810778a1ef8f9d79691553aa5
68dd6640d594462c9d306179c1fc7087405ab380
104582 F20101209_AAAHFG kobylinski_k_Page_059.jpg
f404659a2afae441689b8083ebd9e003
f85f94f336f9ab626e8663d1fcfece2bed3cb35b
105429 F20101209_AAAHER kobylinski_k_Page_037.jpg
302bb21eeddf32c8badb4f7a67ef1dfe
d8e9a3936ac88471c9f16f6515c2cc6bf147f2fe
32550 F20101209_AAAGZL kobylinski_k_Page_125.jpg
9e1ac40039b01b16a733cb27dfb416bf
68a005d57847a9415ecda46c36b0b846470d2ea6
6190 F20101209_AAAIIJ kobylinski_k_Page_004thm.jpg
6980d3164928787bc9df0c985b068694
fa7f15b98bf2e5190633a0c016e186fe58d9a9f1
34418 F20101209_AAAIHU kobylinski_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
2926264d6f1c0faa61806c1e9090bafc
89c4af06ec35eaf8b21cd67fd4bc5f28c34900ed
9010 F20101209_AAAGYY kobylinski_k_Page_133thm.jpg
824151dd4b173de15b6facec55eab80a
9c3416cd41194dd2dea17bd080cf78643d85d316
109771 F20101209_AAAHFH kobylinski_k_Page_060.jpg
01e30d28b410873e1263651f1d53b1e3
57d1f2e1def164f6b05a0683d124ac8dcba4edcc
107444 F20101209_AAAHES kobylinski_k_Page_040.jpg
d9882f480fb70ccac1bfab94c3e42e74
19ff3b5be3caa54bce12642dc812187f69939b46
104821 F20101209_AAAGZM kobylinski_k_Page_130.jpg
1559c329fd0ecdd0c9c855da8c94d4af
c68f8033e772554187b77563303a525b56ca4e07
36968 F20101209_AAAIIK kobylinski_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
0bf3242c7a0fa803a6f584813d6cf512
db526cb82df5b1c4ef84407d12104567a1f47dba
36757 F20101209_AAAIHV kobylinski_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
dd10005edda7b6f21f76d9ad100234e9
0be0bfd987f514c5962fc4ecc0c01a4d42c0981a
108623 F20101209_AAAGYZ kobylinski_k_Page_046.jpg
dc7fa7623ec0afe8ed5c9fe00ab9fbaa
3604c21eb2cc584b51c567dd2b39a16bdef44d5f
105359 F20101209_AAAHFI kobylinski_k_Page_061.jpg
d0a3ed73393ce01e8ac1096cfcb35e35
39ca6ce4c7e06b4856c593edc8bb5e2b403f71ff
110874 F20101209_AAAHET kobylinski_k_Page_041.jpg
9bc8b41fe74f3cb57839d7957685e9e5
0effe91df0cfae6ce2880a7e92158dd421c49315
F20101209_AAAGZN kobylinski_k_Page_154.tif
aa8c69272e9f7acee58ba626493ee122
d0a0bf113d1f7a50cfe586a8d3fa222df140e0ea
3433 F20101209_AAAIIL kobylinski_k_Page_111thm.jpg
4bb4d48cecd2cc564284995c1ba56f09
fd10a31d454da66bd22b8b4a94e5665c0b7b5b43
10840 F20101209_AAAIHW kobylinski_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
bf50778a645f600e8144e485a48a71fb
4e44edaf1564160af5f2ff9916271d0008d44d1d
67767 F20101209_AAAHFJ kobylinski_k_Page_062.jpg
9b026eafb978cdab39a7dcded17d2acc
f7521c75551e805971831de72627baa949dfc979
103913 F20101209_AAAHEU kobylinski_k_Page_042.jpg
2381bf5191f7cdffbf9486d8a89e8a7c
721abb59a3bdd5081a648d14aba2e5a2ac78d766
102746 F20101209_AAAGZO kobylinski_k_Page_009.jpg
a3802183ec45ed5460938de2dabf4a80
6c0f2b2e7cf0397140d01a5626af0e35c8d675ed
8457 F20101209_AAAIJA kobylinski_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
71ed1c2741681aa6660df1162a264f16
54cb227dbfe34858a8218344c624fec46607fae0
3721 F20101209_AAAIIM kobylinski_k_Page_145thm.jpg
8f5f46337e42c3358e652116d09908fd
0620cf785aef83859be67639f9577b201fe582b9
32846 F20101209_AAAIHX kobylinski_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
b8ac34ca31aa2964f57b64a6ad4d96ce
39a632580492733d199d0b0630dba5fb3bca4a3a
55480 F20101209_AAAHFK kobylinski_k_Page_064.jpg
a47ba537391cccc19f12bb565323c975
2fe5162a7bd438fd2091cf1c33916958a1dc5d9a
F20101209_AAAHEV kobylinski_k_Page_043.jpg
679c321567864f51e32df12bd7e4ead8
1d0dcf1a4675ae54b1f7fae2b8ee47a8d21d37cf
8638 F20101209_AAAGZP kobylinski_k_Page_030thm.jpg
282e1cccd51d17a97bee9c332b49505b
a41c9b1d09d719d15de4c53b899d3942f3dc1da3
3185 F20101209_AAAIJB kobylinski_k_Page_143thm.jpg
31a3d6e1024c25a53f84faad01ebe952
db21baf4c78d39817a81a92c5aa80030914f101b
F20101209_AAAIIN kobylinski_k_Page_020thm.jpg
4a10d05a8a60cfdc2468902fcc612bf7
959116fc934c41c7b18006a63e275ae88c62c81e
3598 F20101209_AAAIHY kobylinski_k_Page_140thm.jpg
ac2d6f0dc97bb3c271ed19b7221026d0
e1a9a8aeca6959c41e4e0ffeeacdf3984cdf11ba
18272 F20101209_AAAHFL kobylinski_k_Page_065.jpg
6b31a34e12b3eaa292a4f18aa8cf1de0
14a8bba234c049e77cf1a6b17ddaf1a21a095d4e
108380 F20101209_AAAHEW kobylinski_k_Page_044.jpg
ddbbc53682f38e450233d20ba4aba4d5
92e0bff945645be5c7c668d97e0386c469c8b55a
31667 F20101209_AAAGZQ kobylinski_k_Page_136.jpg
ed550729822e44b683765a3b2ce45961
539cd9e4bf0a5201d5721072340b3177922aba7b
33416 F20101209_AAAIJC kobylinski_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
fe56bbd15b87c160919920f0acc0a10e
1873c13570064be74ef2fc3bb17e27919ea73e7b
9957 F20101209_AAAIHZ kobylinski_k_Page_161thm.jpg
7702b653a8a434e53b7b7de21765f059
f9a2f933bf1134627eeea8e300f2d57ba884a539
110984 F20101209_AAAHEX kobylinski_k_Page_047.jpg
ead8f00acf192d0d164175dd620ec755
c47349256910a5870de4679c740ad8448780c356
21693 F20101209_AAAGZR kobylinski_k_Page_125.pro
c0a673489a3466724a2786ca4dd59363
68a61a917d70da176c6628e879e0460be8046d99
40574 F20101209_AAAHGA kobylinski_k_Page_086.jpg
879cec36d88fb13e666dfe0eace74208
619a5400e1cc1a7fcd6cb24b01b726308f682e1f
36577 F20101209_AAAIJD kobylinski_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
18fb144787dba60c6a218a475eb76fb5
5dbbe55920038b9b614a947d64505ec45c4cc1d6
34919 F20101209_AAAIIO kobylinski_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
6742975b14397ea2b3f173f4da8d71fa
3e873b57ecb631c02a52fda0b3104136749b74e1
43655 F20101209_AAAHFM kobylinski_k_Page_067.jpg
7da2865429023b326b173e9528451214
a41e5f5a51aad61537e7080cb933f457397d4182
109684 F20101209_AAAHEY kobylinski_k_Page_048.jpg
0c0187bffe41c9aee7f59c22b9339bae
f22c5c9f4025861cb3a82e13689bace5e41dc3a1
54460 F20101209_AAAGZS kobylinski_k_Page_035.pro
7878bee5beb8c2679ee4b94884164e02
b217894ecd5b246361f5accfa7964231369047f9
106393 F20101209_AAAHGB kobylinski_k_Page_088.jpg
a464298d0483d3b4c76dba67c7d4d505
74afe84889975b2dd86acfc5e33cd513154770ba
F20101209_AAAIJE kobylinski_k_Page_017thm.jpg
62e3d4dbed980cbdbfe6e7ae57fced5a
7623fbb767079af723c111df5de0bce338324088
5314 F20101209_AAAIIP kobylinski_k_Page_134thm.jpg
6d08491f96e624ddb3eea22e8591ed54
64dbd12cb9f9cdaf7a535eed2f71ccb6a700e900
23453 F20101209_AAAHFN kobylinski_k_Page_068.jpg
0af1b742d57c341a94040c797a4252f8
a94f871d66270fabbca65d4cb388e42650f79737
46668 F20101209_AAAHEZ kobylinski_k_Page_049.jpg
84af3f907f654ff312089f7809c70fdf
997ebaee606f59be94e71fbb304203ba055e6301
51830 F20101209_AAAGZT kobylinski_k_Page_072.pro
2daf3fca6f5ad2e0332214febba9beeb
f70c26d8160e16a909d8cb00771064ceb08967dd
103645 F20101209_AAAHGC kobylinski_k_Page_089.jpg
1a6a29dc555974c9fd5d5301cbb3976c
f3a017e2bb178a1d094d4977a77029f32c571bfe
8329 F20101209_AAAIJF kobylinski_k_Page_032thm.jpg
6af83e3d1fa4f5e3cf232ea358544ad9
4b0ac9edad81e615b53a407ff4f40085c222f14c
42175 F20101209_AAAIIQ kobylinski_k_Page_156.QC.jpg
b00ca6da4f25eae47a3a64caedf52fdf
e48299257841ab8fccd289a8573ca397e01c020d
26926 F20101209_AAAHFO kobylinski_k_Page_069.jpg
02c6a93b3e14546c76e086d3570abe48
cb56c0895dd3a504973c29f4bfb47b829cba1708
68140 F20101209_AAAGZU kobylinski_k_Page_152.pro
90450ea52e8393af5d13449410138f6a
ff5e296f06375998ae2179c0cfb8335fb5defa1f
106254 F20101209_AAAHGD kobylinski_k_Page_090.jpg
3abc830dce16f28057ef7e7a1f5dc562
e405448f65b893fa3da1769e55b6abe363e03526
1652 F20101209_AAAIJG kobylinski_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
4da1590218821904d5a06f8f86cd0f79
df1435c8fabb5e113eb9fc24db6ba62cf9410e52
34768 F20101209_AAAIIR kobylinski_k_Page_128.QC.jpg
38121fcf7de2a5f398c1f08c38420c1f
055f3e62546b0c3f21654fb59070cbcfb9d63bdc
23170 F20101209_AAAHFP kobylinski_k_Page_070.jpg
78309c5846fd4274074de8a786b22af6
b006e3ff1db9069f055fe1ce37e3a1cd9e091314
5655 F20101209_AAAGZV kobylinski_k_Page_103thm.jpg
9ea3b1fc35bd7272abb03dc7bdd03339
44cc1f24d3c9e8b3228e8f309d46c174a42a1aa3
106275 F20101209_AAAHGE kobylinski_k_Page_093.jpg
9bf9a81626101a093ea0e279d3529603
d4b37fcf2774422e89ec53dbd210a1553e81ce35
8832 F20101209_AAAIJH kobylinski_k_Page_083thm.jpg
8733b707a3bbe5b0f8599c345b444fb2
7a22fcbaf1664fdcbd6217eab9b179411e7eb4d7
8234 F20101209_AAAIIS kobylinski_k_Page_012thm.jpg
5939af632d47f1b89e8ffb21b5724392
25f8b66fd78d39e6b5aa3335552d9653b1c5c873
107925 F20101209_AAAHFQ kobylinski_k_Page_073.jpg
d59672a9258e416a58da1c1159a3edbf
19d932046705ffd24e5e8cc44f664e32fa98a688
1051956 F20101209_AAAGZW kobylinski_k_Page_164.jp2
e3843831edc86816c9533b49228e3bf0
5332372d1fbfee173d62d6768d7b978b001a428a
108444 F20101209_AAAHGF kobylinski_k_Page_095.jpg
1b980ddc8dd35941d83ed1e73f2e7015
03c31fb0e46c1efe4c5d878dd9adf0bd4410873f
6669 F20101209_AAAIJI kobylinski_k_Page_003thm.jpg
6bda37cbd6483e436c2d4c28ade452ec
c051eb5bc526f5c47035429e67a8abe79db37e86
26321 F20101209_AAAIIT kobylinski_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
53b8cc556ebe9d826c4b66406bce8aee
69d2793ae3b2026715f0e75c8d4e26a89eba6391
111947 F20101209_AAAHFR kobylinski_k_Page_074.jpg
561ec6612257ea4e36609a143c18e580
aeb69e366153b30e7c61abb4db578491bef5583f
34159 F20101209_AAAGZX kobylinski_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
964a1578276dd23b674dec81b3c9f46a
533792e90c14145bc41e22e1f0ac9f69408d0085
112380 F20101209_AAAHGG kobylinski_k_Page_096.jpg
f2b8cb3ae8dc1d48e62b8670756a5b01
0d455cdfd1ec15ff0e523a171338f7f86a54a218
38870 F20101209_AAAIJJ kobylinski_k_Page_159.QC.jpg
c3a19b7e2b45ae16043ccda811ebd86e
16f80f6507d4ac161b5fb74791e9b16925e50250
8928 F20101209_AAAIIU kobylinski_k_Page_048thm.jpg
8ee85e46b3cc1e5836d07aba72142ce7
bdaeed796ec2d00a704fdaaa570cb2687f21f413
110088 F20101209_AAAHFS kobylinski_k_Page_075.jpg
a9b5be17cccce9a0b9bfad56b6fa6593
0a42efa917e6f9365c231404f20cdc1911a9e9e2
1921 F20101209_AAAGZY kobylinski_k_Page_147.txt
e58c8cb4bcad0b03ad8e80a87aca76c1
e11ee23ec65f7c254b778dc35113717ab87179ee
111531 F20101209_AAAHGH kobylinski_k_Page_097.jpg
4890a81cb80728090e62c60ddc8f337a
444f19e0a00badf56c3a2880055510158efc8a34
9162 F20101209_AAAIJK kobylinski_k_Page_153thm.jpg
e5e78332921d45da95b34c2b3b023d8e
5c7edb9b708cbf73b558316c725959fdb89188aa
F20101209_AAAIIV kobylinski_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
7d220d21b87e85503818fe4f57178539
ea509d6991eeeaacc45dda40d7a25de3208eb05d
109835 F20101209_AAAHFT kobylinski_k_Page_077.jpg
d91e55a749fd16ecde1b31198a857892
2bda9dc5d9f8cdce117b6022249f032d81f61d0b
13667 F20101209_AAAGZZ kobylinski_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
523f449a20abcbb0134a1f109596d0a8
ae5588113afb9f92430d25239cc872fd867236cb
104353 F20101209_AAAHGI kobylinski_k_Page_098.jpg
aa82c7552c0a65467ffa09fee9462079
94998dbdf526e12ce029a3379eeddccf808812db
7062 F20101209_AAAIJL kobylinski_k_Page_010thm.jpg
1f7c7167f10e522e67764ca648f4948e
32eb1f53485a54b13b09ba4f8b51012e5a0e8a43
8613 F20101209_AAAIIW kobylinski_k_Page_061thm.jpg
c359b90771e16978cdadd4ab016a299d
1e4305cff162b62ee308dc31c042302d4726c553
103978 F20101209_AAAHFU kobylinski_k_Page_078.jpg
5be47e535970bba33182b50c5cf47e08
3b7ea5e15bbf9a841f6a5e1c2c37164b7eb56b54
72787 F20101209_AAAHGJ kobylinski_k_Page_099.jpg
c44ca75727200c54ad3d687359176689
e24d8342979d87868475f18f34d99d9ff2cd3a72
36003 F20101209_AAAIKA kobylinski_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
cdd42b52b155ec170eb8405744f40ee4
21e4c743e7bd40482bda62fc2b36f6bf909406e5
3088 F20101209_AAAIJM kobylinski_k_Page_142thm.jpg
df802917f5c4ad7c4d5c45ff7943d8ae
c39d25263a33abab2488436d53da7e4067265dc0
9797 F20101209_AAAIIX kobylinski_k_Page_159thm.jpg
e062bdc28da001e59163c39300ae10bd
3e2cdeba68c3fa7de57ed990c6cafaf9f090dc9f
113295 F20101209_AAAHFV kobylinski_k_Page_079.jpg
08910da859150aa132c172e9413be13c
1d99fb7b683a197e3b9002630a2800b813dd61c5
36723 F20101209_AAAHGK kobylinski_k_Page_101.jpg
c976c2d63483e9d051d8311cadbcb85d
321bd41a77b43a573ba70131a33e98f93bff31f8
25532 F20101209_AAAIKB kobylinski_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
5c922aba7af5079753967ae06213a1f8
afcea73666829d7c6adf8635331e68007e4d01cd
1831 F20101209_AAAIJN kobylinski_k_Page_066thm.jpg
b60513bb650f7f21c60240f134933db5
c66ef6d3cbeffe9d43f5fc362f6ae792bb53eae5
9367 F20101209_AAAIIY kobylinski_k_Page_125.QC.jpg
a8fd850ce3f6a3f6e97d46ab6d344dac
72c35b65a8f4f805ac21a1437b79a534b4f468b0
105946 F20101209_AAAHFW kobylinski_k_Page_081.jpg
d096599cfbba5bf626b1a4fdc77bb6b5
8fba16665743a0d086601f51f65013060357ac04
56228 F20101209_AAAHGL kobylinski_k_Page_102.jpg
bb948b2dbac816d5d599f44cf9ff7cd9
945c513e69bc60fea8c32c2fb7a0d334dbd83ec7
35360 F20101209_AAAIKC kobylinski_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
d7da9ecde14b5c1f2190e935c6a5f476
611523e790764be0e4fd440117bb4c37d74b469a
25355 F20101209_AAAIJO kobylinski_k_Page_135.QC.jpg
3f3920bb3b2faf51cd134f97a60d1067
3715294e6e112c27d0e118f8c2c8d82c16ab96a6
37653 F20101209_AAAIIZ kobylinski_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
1a807fa182e98d06ad0d6d0d2040f36c
dc821d2e3cd8b8d1bc6cae1d7d4710f8d3e96293
107719 F20101209_AAAHFX kobylinski_k_Page_083.jpg
6c0f9ddd6d2475dc9063bf2dd918d561
98bc4c80adbd2b6f3a722e4b9a23337951141244
61830 F20101209_AAAHHA kobylinski_k_Page_121.jpg
6350a6d7e4363d5b574f1050a55c39a3
1c9a5ea4b3aac9ea12a8bba114c6b8009c5c2548
79910 F20101209_AAAHGM kobylinski_k_Page_103.jpg
843ae02f8df06b54356b3013948d7384
45594b32e175ba3eb68ed8a38ae29c822ac3de56
8214 F20101209_AAAIKD kobylinski_k_Page_108thm.jpg
9beb4ee98b6cb604ca12062cc6af26d4
892cd35fed66b7dda4e85fdab905479d38dec9ae
75136 F20101209_AAAHFY kobylinski_k_Page_084.jpg
f282d2b8decc005428cc646477bc12ab
f445a9993d74bd62935891dd0e39896126a12aea
35617 F20101209_AAAHHB kobylinski_k_Page_123.jpg
bdd8ae62783e9ca08795b77c69b51016
9501d75b71e51d7e5174e1046834c6af4a8ca01e
252675 F20101209_AAAIKE UFE0017601_00001.xml
bfc763ea565bdb5fe8620347fc95fc7c
d163605962b44ed1a46991eb7cda1bf8816392d8
40888 F20101209_AAAIJP kobylinski_k_Page_164.QC.jpg
5abe3e73c2e8ccbd8547f3e3470828da
2b6b7b9d831b616fdf11a7f244faec395b654d03
51245 F20101209_AAAHFZ kobylinski_k_Page_085.jpg
0d0d07c5202ae947d007d80b859c51a5
5a46c611e593c62601833df80c0267d911e0858d
62854 F20101209_AAAHHC kobylinski_k_Page_124.jpg
03cac453e6368cd08457a17ebd253c30
e86097790b6e74540266d3121b6c6b47656ec1ec
69753 F20101209_AAAHGN kobylinski_k_Page_104.jpg
889d165e0669901b877f3ff75cad59de
6f76eb81114c5dbf6f954f364970b5652c40c516
25906 F20101209_AAAIKF kobylinski_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
f32e3c8eedee120756297d79c5d91f6b
07f8cab16e6d7c59444b1930d81e6953b2b1db6e
9060 F20101209_AAAIJQ kobylinski_k_Page_047thm.jpg
71d467cb8537273a922c9b776de7f7ba
b6c03c80b84593b664c638e7dcdeaf00e23efba8
41804 F20101209_AAAHHD kobylinski_k_Page_126.jpg
91bd1fbbaa89dab4b3961c89c2632216
30cede057774865a36ec86613de3f650f1b64504
109900 F20101209_AAAHGO kobylinski_k_Page_106.jpg
5d01cb4472ca50c7cd820674d9830295
6e0267ee29635b466b9748b94a44604e387097a4
25222 F20101209_AAAIKG kobylinski_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
706781e76589bf9af707d6a57b177271
e577e0f973eaa33beb0fd6a74528aa7bc6d04d72
8261 F20101209_AAAIJR kobylinski_k_Page_027thm.jpg
26b3eae8b42bc63b84f95f42de9f0f95
e45da866863c66c42ed7c1ad0ab69a798493360a
21977 F20101209_AAAHHE kobylinski_k_Page_127.jpg
261ebd5ab9aaa3832846c73c5de20f93
f526e7f970f623279ae3358c2af28533b22875bd
108606 F20101209_AAAHGP kobylinski_k_Page_107.jpg
f88e5bb2ee5f5f2e15dfe88ee201782b
d7896914509bf80f4abacfed843c65a38492d59c
7011 F20101209_AAAIKH kobylinski_k_Page_009thm.jpg
16208fe2cfc387545e4148e7bcc6cfdc
ebd29083a4001cb45fcd8c4454cfac6b5c59e39c
36220 F20101209_AAAIJS kobylinski_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
005d9ea3f6f048934be029fa75924ee6
90dec09c77026c354d905d854ad864714bd1a7a8
106529 F20101209_AAAHHF kobylinski_k_Page_128.jpg
5384bd45fc75075803d95f69a48e1eda
257fbf90fe0d00077fb282649a02c515e17d138c
101735 F20101209_AAAHGQ kobylinski_k_Page_108.jpg
c8def368c361e5c4249e0bd7aca76100
c0cc647f409d54b9c5cb6380316ac1b7406685e6
34289 F20101209_AAAIKI kobylinski_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
91f935a9ac97e85160fcaaff4df47a8a
a0d970093891b9e881168b72277eb99b39b12a6d
7621 F20101209_AAAIJT kobylinski_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
2f3753686761e0d3067318a8382ffd7c
c919de1d08f668d88f135953f9e20cb5964b50d6
115596 F20101209_AAAHHG kobylinski_k_Page_129.jpg
f78620a82adaa4b1c9590c0d505ef0a7
c21f0e1c465c511986c9076d5fe30ded95f826dc
104699 F20101209_AAAHGR kobylinski_k_Page_109.jpg
f7cb998e6d3bb73fda540cd51612c211
6d1cb443ff6001fdb1e77378c03592e851b23c49
8584 F20101209_AAAIKJ kobylinski_k_Page_016thm.jpg
4a5708dd6ceb8ba72d9223d8bc645b7c
af6d34e12fac15d035b47c3ad46163a1c3235c58
38172 F20101209_AAAIJU kobylinski_k_Page_163.QC.jpg
0526a56ebd5f707eb3654bd25e67e322
048ed8cfb0739b63115b020c946310fd50268265
108262 F20101209_AAAHHH kobylinski_k_Page_131.jpg
990911826e9c76664fcf5a96c5679f63
c8e5a37d35f78c1c1fae3ba82fe03f8fca23e44d
18810 F20101209_AAAHGS kobylinski_k_Page_110.jpg
edfa2e3bedc7e4f3ec7e27223bff3cf6
fcaf9a02155e8bb12eb8910c989389b10b117d2e
38022 F20101209_AAAIKK kobylinski_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
99a695f178912d26e0070888a37e95fd
c66aff22f6c2917ab9d95d59c44223e03743c3d2
33559 F20101209_AAAIJV kobylinski_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
a8457bb47b19498b855c7a0898305f87
b87046e69043cff8ac01ca8fed580cd06d76fbfb
59770 F20101209_AAAHHI kobylinski_k_Page_134.jpg
4d8abc4b39f74f47f9e8f361c565b5a0
65d385737caf3e70c2e6a692efaac90672cfe832
32363 F20101209_AAAHGT kobylinski_k_Page_112.jpg
878e2569ee285044524411e53fd14321
a9025b0264c3172915598110dc6ae326397f2a00
36359 F20101209_AAAIKL kobylinski_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
a9de168a2182b09ac657474e64199a1f
5ee80d5a500a8c5907a96c6788e01045c5eaf213
8922 F20101209_AAAIJW kobylinski_k_Page_093thm.jpg
18ac327b143a538ef4ec6e5c86680672
a789900acc17e628ad66563b0de3ce1945b7de2f
108302 F20101209_AAAHHJ kobylinski_k_Page_135.jpg
84bf885e25cf2e5d57f8ead09c97c8c1
2e3464db06b3adf2fba721f05da49030cf5cb864
31839 F20101209_AAAHGU kobylinski_k_Page_113.jpg
d77332b16f9bb749ba9a6ae0c334a6b7
d16801130c7c7245e8cb038b2ffec681f0e3569b
5825 F20101209_AAAILA kobylinski_k_Page_062thm.jpg
ae6b0ddb048316bad87226d865147822
3a511d910a380d806117455bc48d2da2649adcd5
35864 F20101209_AAAIKM kobylinski_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
3f803ab959c228f6d6d316bedc2dd8c7
b629a36edc035e1e5574a72d766e20eeb9151dd0
8652 F20101209_AAAIJX kobylinski_k_Page_034thm.jpg
26b94264347b1167da3045d6828ebc03
ea9579de5e2766366611f8ceadd8547b2326f9fe
29097 F20101209_AAAHHK kobylinski_k_Page_137.jpg
ea4ace91224c3d3d09f171e98f6d95c9
5082f4cc8536533565c70ba96af9bccc2489c501
106392 F20101209_AAAHGV kobylinski_k_Page_114.jpg
bec674241e8b9f46ffc2a4a67e11704f
480ba2d93c82335f55c9234c9517d70d0af981e4
5283 F20101209_AAAILB kobylinski_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
eac177971b349bb606a37ad5e2db5a1b
2c0a6291a11784616c148f093b5b5c8df1a2a635
8883 F20101209_AAAIKN kobylinski_k_Page_029thm.jpg
67a11e6757672358b5f3485ca2571ea6
ad075097f465e1a6b62afd5b43220ea5b201a8e4
9031 F20101209_AAAIJY kobylinski_k_Page_118thm.jpg
705e90c4eb09876e5f2a10af899d098b
be740be0e9195f6d7a7b3cf76b74b7037282c5f1
30471 F20101209_AAAHHL kobylinski_k_Page_138.jpg
c0d5aaeb68a44be3aef43f3dce30d213
707be545e32e2e502f4f6adcc3aa6417bd891477
102810 F20101209_AAAHGW kobylinski_k_Page_115.jpg
beaa549b7d6c60fdf7ab428cd73b7507
0d92c22bd4f8beb0ca7cfb0760f2da18765930a7
12565 F20101209_AAAILC kobylinski_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
7f6ce5b516cd29af71b3290a3a3734be
ce6332be5a1051074fa9272e050443d40658d735
36422 F20101209_AAAIKO kobylinski_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
27691b5d57e66da026e13b6722072a5c
8bd6c21f3b833b9f4a59747951e2423e25b5a889
33005 F20101209_AAAIJZ kobylinski_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
35dccc301afd13e1a889b2c22c3f7397
a766bdfe365ef7d651d0c1ef98450a8898333278
138367 F20101209_AAAHIA kobylinski_k_Page_154.jpg
3e21959aaa639ac124d32b5a1e12cd1d
7e27faad50f4aa4e383a42bdb06435f35b5ea3b1
32068 F20101209_AAAHHM kobylinski_k_Page_139.jpg
11a71f361828c84caaf3add2b0d541a6
47a34f8444e8127352d9440dc4fc8ac4e939c9aa
100619 F20101209_AAAHGX kobylinski_k_Page_116.jpg
300f100882e382e7e3670b3ddf2660b9
e0c2f74d3c8c2922cf47d105c168cff5582520c6
9004 F20101209_AAAILD kobylinski_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
c06d98a16cd41057202c2efaa527ffcf
6a29a6daca923f9dc614bc5bdfc8a73ca8b51991
35471 F20101209_AAAIKP kobylinski_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
42b5c16c4e2e24bd273c17efaea2efc3
aee3db0f15ddb43eac9597ad75c17e825a652a47
138913 F20101209_AAAHIB kobylinski_k_Page_155.jpg
3210e99275b59d53cc881d02051a9cc5
8090a3fff4589b853546c8b67bd83501f00c756f
30942 F20101209_AAAHHN kobylinski_k_Page_140.jpg
0daae104c8850d43f8220cd97353bb21
c79ef44021c6f56adcb28efd228cc3ea9835e4c0
97392 F20101209_AAAHGY kobylinski_k_Page_117.jpg
298ed48fee160fd05c081c353be42bce
5b4a4820d9fb27de54757ccc796215e923b16397
2902 F20101209_AAAILE kobylinski_k_Page_071thm.jpg
0ae41e34b9ab21f255245407960afafc
63f95a88c1681b21a4f0d856ffb4fed272653236
138304 F20101209_AAAHIC kobylinski_k_Page_157.jpg
a7fa2e066c48f2291cb23c4e01d0f485
b27ce2d2d91d066c2bea7c7378d9df8430163b3e
101151 F20101209_AAAHGZ kobylinski_k_Page_120.jpg
ecbd2c28a32397f74fab3190736f82be
bfd9ad1e2ba164850dab5c541b3159ed93c2a804
36759 F20101209_AAAILF kobylinski_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
b9214ef8b35468dc939e1e092bd8ba0a
92dc5423d3039cab45583c83f28bf61a67d44a8f
8912 F20101209_AAAIKQ kobylinski_k_Page_037thm.jpg
caf96016352d0fa131f5607688d1e7d6
b20ed171642e541b38aea93b2498baba7e6e75b7
134327 F20101209_AAAHID kobylinski_k_Page_158.jpg
de1fc68c5e7bdf38e14bd9c60170a170
8a61c78b576d52be87834256aa8faf6bc5c887a2
29969 F20101209_AAAHHO kobylinski_k_Page_141.jpg
4a6543d642680045a118ce49ccccbdb5
5f8568ea8274bc0963b0d4aeb67694cff03eca47
35975 F20101209_AAAILG kobylinski_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
bb6d8d9db9b6d390b6c0d9d89def67bd
78f22ed829a637c96f85cf9b1b857dd54230586e
34214 F20101209_AAAIKR kobylinski_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
735762241edcfa1d26be19b947d09114
c8158467341282322bea572eee8680b15c183538
132670 F20101209_AAAHIE kobylinski_k_Page_159.jpg
2873be7f04d279503b78b3472021a224
fd784009138263a089fcfe915ff0c65572dc8a68
26341 F20101209_AAAHHP kobylinski_k_Page_142.jpg
fb5da269e140c76ad0577f0718ff1c5d
cac83868ca43a5d3a024c7a7fcff3c5d9b6260f3
33805 F20101209_AAAILH kobylinski_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
dd9f6c4c5a8a64af31e0ae8bb1c3115b
831499c9271cf1efff00e24b0c33d0012a6b3cf4
34323 F20101209_AAAIKS kobylinski_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
b30c51541433853ae100bb759192f0ab
c9d669654fae32efc682a3f84d3bb7d529c07036
140719 F20101209_AAAHIF kobylinski_k_Page_161.jpg
cc06767c322b11c773e68f86ef93dd0e
fa7c6b6bf69f173be74134d40ff940f794e8bd86
24482 F20101209_AAAHHQ kobylinski_k_Page_144.jpg
eeb0ddcb9656e09d60ff768552873c6e
45084f0f74d76e987b5f16f1d54d2a4bb2f24e7d
37617 F20101209_AAAILI kobylinski_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
a1c9ea1249f6946bce426b3a9c88ebf9
dcd51b2df1bac09e05721ec90fe7273442e1f453
8450 F20101209_AAAIKT kobylinski_k_Page_043thm.jpg
542285a1cf14eeb920c2dac49371045f
18aa61a70f760145ad9e0d59c92a3f2a4886fea8
132171 F20101209_AAAHIG kobylinski_k_Page_162.jpg
5f411ee849e0ad17fe96727160808b3b
9a0908493cc81b97e9003d3830f8e97d18452047
29922 F20101209_AAAHHR kobylinski_k_Page_145.jpg
3647775d2ed73b9b9290f49fd991b468
128c909a25de414e6f98b2b9ee0e352f59f8e4ee
8271 F20101209_AAAILJ kobylinski_k_Page_081thm.jpg
84c17fd6b284eef187e4a2c82fd4b592
6efef00725e3349577d0a414c9ab6afb4da90fff
8858 F20101209_AAAIKU kobylinski_k_Page_046thm.jpg
f28776558f24398af73ca85193f22d34
4200f7e42902b4288dd3b2177a984156a5d3c96c
127572 F20101209_AAAHIH kobylinski_k_Page_163.jpg
05d7e6bc6f443574a65a5d414e32fa4a
82c48131aacb4b23d8d52b9f480bac9f3c36ac72
95933 F20101209_AAAHHS kobylinski_k_Page_146.jpg
0451118983e73bd86720fbced727c765
b7ec1a8708e34d916ee72cb4e4c7e5d3ce9199ad
3633 F20101209_AAAILK kobylinski_k_Page_085thm.jpg
837bd81679e62a2e5b460601ef7b5d38
4e4a84c0920ee362a1ea61f75f4cab58c6456094
3870 F20101209_AAAIKV kobylinski_k_Page_049thm.jpg
792b8bdfeda0c9ceb090df86bfa2585a
04d6b43b505cf3969cb666b23d0a8713a838368c
140409 F20101209_AAAHII kobylinski_k_Page_164.jpg
7ec4e4d5444287593b1c94f56b9f986c
8e4969581a5cbe197f9f5867d811de5cf00c0f90
99797 F20101209_AAAHHT kobylinski_k_Page_147.jpg
28052eeac87d1b3c966efb3341db2e82
a3439d31862e14763c67e71c926caf82a369e4da
35945 F20101209_AAAILL kobylinski_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
c431eafd5101623e3f2536a762f3309c
cf649c648cfdd12635c2ffb0cf968cdae4ca21dd
7918 F20101209_AAAIKW kobylinski_k_Page_050thm.jpg
b5641052b7e2605ff9e76ad2597febbb
eff28454448f4b19c2277826fe1c51146ce6591d
53700 F20101209_AAAHIJ kobylinski_k_Page_165.jpg
ee51216f3697155556e678943e7ddf1a
2a1f6cbdded35b89d63420e0d83b6a127826f2b2
128460 F20101209_AAAHHU kobylinski_k_Page_148.jpg
23287407b65c67bc2ae0400d6826e135
5c8bdf6006e6d57ca8d0c993330b345b6202db36
41044 F20101209_AAAIMA kobylinski_k_Page_149.QC.jpg
17e99b09e7fcf461a6447098ad9739f9
278906a3e41fcccc591c78d2c92e8429c0d04301
23859 F20101209_AAAILM kobylinski_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
67bc7ec9768cdb966f12a219584a8d25
67d026e0928ea03aef5d6da95dec3991961ca0d9
38307 F20101209_AAAIKX kobylinski_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
6defb2b4576f3a50be69e4d38ab5dedc
8f650cfadc8f5a454a3f274ba4174160108b5a87
29518 F20101209_AAAHIK kobylinski_k_Page_001.jp2
1ac444de4c60e18da4ebfada6ae62e7a
2427bd6c0a90966f87c66295e2339588b77d6d42
143019 F20101209_AAAHHV kobylinski_k_Page_149.jpg
3211c19eb14662d67972b3cfe551ae9c
d1eaa01fe8f862822750af86bd8620b3d2143e58
9297 F20101209_AAAIMB kobylinski_k_Page_152thm.jpg
595d8d045bf1fd3d17fe22cd4b48d232
bd55311de027dc4341f1df200d6a5336cd1f9247
8432 F20101209_AAAILN kobylinski_k_Page_114thm.jpg
83ce83854ea5b88457a892854b139f0c
4b023a32dc2504d582e8cbd00da001e30cb608f8
8810 F20101209_AAAIKY kobylinski_k_Page_056thm.jpg
e8ef52487e3f5cf686c4f1d40cbe7a5f
f9ee01f8145c972db8c131ea46b068986a0f694f
84184 F20101209_AAAHIL kobylinski_k_Page_003.jp2
732c91df9b0b233ea1fd4ca7a638a0ae
615e8fc003046fab8abb3583254ddbc2e46250e4
131511 F20101209_AAAHHW kobylinski_k_Page_150.jpg
c853991064a33c93e070d3cdb4f46abe
69edc1fa5a0c131cf61ee6eb97547cb91104af90
41119 F20101209_AAAIMC kobylinski_k_Page_154.QC.jpg
922dbe4d357d670faa85c8340a279c74
6fcce21ca9b955afada9d4fc04f8fae5252dfc67
8178 F20101209_AAAILO kobylinski_k_Page_116thm.jpg
47205278baa54f12733350246f667fc9
1b2af7a8b07743ad44f0ccab9116959992631148
8926 F20101209_AAAIKZ kobylinski_k_Page_058thm.jpg
70633864c3bceb646e0d60f56f1bba5b
1a5e645a47f70556a5f78bbc67aac8cce952d715
1051980 F20101209_AAAHIM kobylinski_k_Page_004.jp2
75835998fc914a693e4c2c6ec4f73008
4fb3f292232fc0d761942406ae4aabc57b31da3b
127339 F20101209_AAAHHX kobylinski_k_Page_151.jpg
444dcdb1fd8b96b437a5c87e0065666e
1b93a035b9f5399e97d198465858c289fc158e21
119155 F20101209_AAAHJA kobylinski_k_Page_022.jp2
6381afefbaf95dd14338228847b2638d
ea619fbc68ea6922b7571363e1f42713b0b97790
40399 F20101209_AAAIMD kobylinski_k_Page_157.QC.jpg
77d491e8a410cfa5751acf0096166606
d9855a7de1b5d9de90fda766f7764c2e808d0aeb
36046 F20101209_AAAILP kobylinski_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
190ec17c9ac57ba5d78674708782f0dd
9fccfae734086415301d23e100a6ffb846b4f469
1051936 F20101209_AAAHIN kobylinski_k_Page_005.jp2
423c7fa544e635c502c99c747b16f886
e8f36e654b5affe08c1cfded995c50fe6c8f4bab
138537 F20101209_AAAHHY kobylinski_k_Page_152.jpg
a6ae6aa67f8e317b2796ee7087fd82e1
d585dea2f8587585e1347bfea85f43519e7b3e8a
120279 F20101209_AAAHJB kobylinski_k_Page_024.jp2
37ffd50bfae95f99925d133c4c238cda
079054b926b35ed6fdae7d2f68d78e51c8aa5735
9779 F20101209_AAAIME kobylinski_k_Page_158thm.jpg
cd0ebde49b51c56561868fff9bbdc131
97c657fe1e5bceb25a90bc9a3ef6751e6c519bff
4699 F20101209_AAAILQ kobylinski_k_Page_124thm.jpg
1d3b704b83634ae0c711d7bbb9ffcf18
95fca8998bf8edf5132ab36cba3e40fe0cfe9184
1051984 F20101209_AAAHIO kobylinski_k_Page_006.jp2
89fc699a4738b260387b399993a34aec
912e6107178fa10963873133ff18e4e7eb126563
126862 F20101209_AAAHHZ kobylinski_k_Page_153.jpg
6ba83ba36af767e5f9bd078ea7b49d82
7e0eb0562bce1a38ea5fdefbe52769af3114db63
115591 F20101209_AAAHJC kobylinski_k_Page_025.jp2
acccfff9c676609fc38388629056bc92
4303651c543b5f5b5f1e2b638d10ceccb199b2ee
9901 F20101209_AAAIMF kobylinski_k_Page_162thm.jpg
955b14ddeb930a25f60a7dd4ab163166
e48d33d30fc9c3505a8c40dd6c58919ccde6f08d
112230 F20101209_AAAHJD kobylinski_k_Page_026.jp2
fef414cba3487637b02b65da96b5f439
c973d90bc7aba9475f4e7ef78d65eefab5949fae
38539 F20101209_AAAIMG kobylinski_k_Page_162.QC.jpg
38530e9d9a2d04a2f5eccf964b3a0156
e13e183bccf1ffbd7e5e6e205f85b3caea4ae108
2014 F20101209_AAAILR kobylinski_k_Page_127thm.jpg
0bcbf7b9a126517f061e9a6561eae264
49035cbcf2760a9cc364719fc8a2734c5265212a
520056 F20101209_AAAHIP kobylinski_k_Page_008.jp2
52201c3452fa6dc92e80062c9271b605
fe13a13d823c3dcf2f29f399c8a47b23b6b3f0dc
116197 F20101209_AAAHJE kobylinski_k_Page_028.jp2
1927c975ae109c418140a091c46dc595
5472a708cedcffed23bce8f8771e5a5bd1d13f13
10005 F20101209_AAAIMH kobylinski_k_Page_164thm.jpg
0025c313dd39bb598d12636973abd90b
9856ede4d31936f10ab2cbd08dad50058bafb0a0
8821 F20101209_AAAILS kobylinski_k_Page_129thm.jpg
9ff6fcbe1ecba1cad4f1ebbef8adb4d7
20659c325147ad72180bb2b301e8269f9aca56b8
1051981 F20101209_AAAHIQ kobylinski_k_Page_009.jp2
4f8cf0f9a0080f68b657dc380680f0c9
a81672d0a8d7a6d15e6f4cfac5e0faaf1406ccd5
120925 F20101209_AAAHJF kobylinski_k_Page_029.jp2
6121c9c6348e346dbf8ff6f9c6874acc
b0074c86ec1676638bb2799adf3919d8448f695f
3894 F20101209_AAAIMI kobylinski_k_Page_165thm.jpg
bee0dd41d50ca57cbff2f6b8aa985609
1f330469110d7b245a8473d280b31b1c4c7bc4f5
36065 F20101209_AAAILT kobylinski_k_Page_131.QC.jpg
03bfffada7e12ba650c1a8a1f626cede
bc3be54f20457fa257c74ad275a5fb1bd08dac56
100402 F20101209_AAAHIR kobylinski_k_Page_010.jp2
b035c6b8d7bf7d0b7ed19aada0534456
a7169b4f71128d729b61cfe940a3f2210189aa4f
115952 F20101209_AAAHJG kobylinski_k_Page_030.jp2
63b5d623b7f842eef5b3c30e9085891d
d2c57c4750afc199213bc10775e8dedff5540b27
F20101209_AAAILU kobylinski_k_Page_132thm.jpg
b7a7c83d815ae686d3670df6a26811cb
46bd9a5b46762c73944af6f4efe2a83c81bc51a2
120500 F20101209_AAAHIS kobylinski_k_Page_011.jp2
8f8e0c93d481002fec3ede390b1c154e
e146f2bfaf21a9d95e15f015e00451a5f93fb340
104730 F20101209_AAAHJH kobylinski_k_Page_031.jp2
53e13087d8acdeaf0e4a3f20dafafa40
137056fdf8a6ea001fa74afb184dbc3bd8c854eb
36301 F20101209_AAAILV kobylinski_k_Page_133.QC.jpg
4aa8e72a7008d1df933cead6ade95fbe
019ff082e6695863f1fa9792e66900e832769b7e
109974 F20101209_AAAHIT kobylinski_k_Page_012.jp2
a8d9b807cc7f89410cbe4622840d59bd
0117892a9e8991a6e8ab87d1ccd8e2aa769ebb5f
115731 F20101209_AAAHJI kobylinski_k_Page_032.jp2
753db8e62616b3d8d3f91a14456b0fd8
158599effc185f882bdf2fb6a13aee9b34000924
2668 F20101209_AAAILW kobylinski_k_Page_136thm.jpg
4b6f68f9fe38512819361c5ed121940b
28f5b62d3274faafaff4891dae5185fd288e2967
115226 F20101209_AAAHIU kobylinski_k_Page_013.jp2
f7d3b04694e093dc8d7fdb69729a1bab
59c35e871cd4ab7af7f3935acc39c23bfe0f9271
115550 F20101209_AAAHJJ kobylinski_k_Page_034.jp2
76528eb6bc87fd779d13cdc1ee9a47a1
afb26d1bc57d06a9522baa58100dddf9538d04db
3878 F20101209_AAAILX kobylinski_k_Page_139thm.jpg
d5410c16abcfda0f70531445a45bec04
b27c2517703fe07f5b7b217f94d11905c0c67772
119406 F20101209_AAAHIV kobylinski_k_Page_014.jp2
1bba05e22d9e17828b11c9c62fb1cfc9
095773cdea9022b85aabb2c4d317d6179bdcbcbd
111594 F20101209_AAAHJK kobylinski_k_Page_037.jp2
d6771e1ea7439fd76c9ac92d5305cb84
c3a5fa458901c24a9d6ab55f758e9c1b004b21e8
F20101209_AAAILY kobylinski_k_Page_143.QC.jpg
97e1835da40508b9de6d64ad5105781e
9503521fb78b1034fdc98c94d4c9b4be5f677d6f
119174 F20101209_AAAHIW kobylinski_k_Page_016.jp2
27ffaf0fbeaf3938d9b599e82d136395
914d038f0b41df9a918285d65af916ec291b6ae8
115547 F20101209_AAAHJL kobylinski_k_Page_038.jp2
4a41bb8ff3fe95bfd0d64777801c3da5
252bd69d424120fe71f8bb8ce12454c620aac3be
11145 F20101209_AAAILZ kobylinski_k_Page_145.QC.jpg
897dce16d5d85e76f6f8b7c588c15454
7f0b86400fc74f7a73d5367475b246bade4b98c5
120226 F20101209_AAAHIX kobylinski_k_Page_017.jp2
3dfaad71df5782d103561d752db2fa04
d39d05fd909d2dcca33c8410511aba802bf13f32
119353 F20101209_AAAHKA kobylinski_k_Page_056.jp2
75e251e324102092f2f8db08268905a4
8f22093afbda74a3064d85df4e5855adeaf185f8
111134 F20101209_AAAHJM kobylinski_k_Page_039.jp2
21a700d1fa0965918948feb90cdb9fae
46ba89a3a95b3d4c76ac5edae28c1975e0bacc1d
114235 F20101209_AAAHKB kobylinski_k_Page_057.jp2
27482330dab6f6ffcb3d0a7121e347bf
6d6fb92efe3cf775cd20bf6ed735d4140c00924b
114951 F20101209_AAAHJN kobylinski_k_Page_040.jp2
0f379629669841c5e0d16e0085157671
4028aa2b61b85e823602e543f94a277e39151e2c
120998 F20101209_AAAHIY kobylinski_k_Page_019.jp2
b818840f882985c3a333953d98dd0bd9
9b5e7839e5edbbeaab26a4dadf07eba0bc517303
122559 F20101209_AAAHKC kobylinski_k_Page_058.jp2
d5ebf63fb25a8911db11048ffa72c5d0
69dcc05467d78730bde835d91d3cb4f3032ff1ba
120248 F20101209_AAAHJO kobylinski_k_Page_041.jp2
736576de7882eeac0201f7bd1b4a7cac
0aae1cd9f7449da808d2d39faa5141fd19d30301
116718 F20101209_AAAHIZ kobylinski_k_Page_020.jp2
2c4c25fb8218dacb9bc43c9e2043e6d5
f33c578d4d0a0526c813f995a1d9ecec99c837e8
115398 F20101209_AAAHKD kobylinski_k_Page_059.jp2
a42c9ae788a4c196c53bf4c7577d83fd
cc3e86af5a0bdb692ee9a43514762aa542d5a08e
111867 F20101209_AAAHJP kobylinski_k_Page_042.jp2
fa0c65cdddd3452b93c99938f1a92558
a62f0d8054fec53c57f3ea085343f819cf28c975
112733 F20101209_AAAHKE kobylinski_k_Page_061.jp2
6866d859979eb37090f32c5db0e6a15f
d7ccae514582e46c9f9bb5326f5a2aad2b33e0be
73589 F20101209_AAAHKF kobylinski_k_Page_062.jp2
a9c1c8f7e9a9883459817955ff5c9bb9
07f2d5df5d614a1ec3d590c89d731b1c762a6ca0
112013 F20101209_AAAHJQ kobylinski_k_Page_043.jp2
490e1b8e6909b90269efa5507cc390d5
33a297091f2ed9a72733da19ff0820b2e039d3bf
1051857 F20101209_AAAHKG kobylinski_k_Page_063.jp2
6c4b82b361d2e65ae924a98615014127
d10091b9bf926d57176cc199b1118eb6c101bb26
113953 F20101209_AAAHJR kobylinski_k_Page_044.jp2
e824f8e96f29a58c7b165440f3d8e60a
53111f442eab08be888c321d7ebeefa151326ccc
1051835 F20101209_AAAHKH kobylinski_k_Page_064.jp2
2537577d3ef8c66fc6607f05dcd8cdf5
644a16f24de73e284f5e66cc00f97683c36c59c0
117216 F20101209_AAAHJS kobylinski_k_Page_045.jp2
890b9d770d053999fb747edb3c169f0a
8bf4ce52e23265cad816b7a9ffbb857f33d5329f
1051957 F20101209_AAAHKI kobylinski_k_Page_067.jp2
1e7805d71f2428940dd026fc0d13fe08
b605c76f0e447e00b9942819ae63ede9fcbaf84e
117767 F20101209_AAAHJT kobylinski_k_Page_046.jp2
1476e492ac3698df39fb9880aa6436b4
3295f446b602dfb6f7eb91b747e8267b179b7feb
534858 F20101209_AAAHKJ kobylinski_k_Page_068.jp2
6713d6d2deaee312375c92db5a6ab684
4499b86335fddebfdc5a1a18ebc967db3688ab0a
118339 F20101209_AAAHJU kobylinski_k_Page_047.jp2
6a97e6e7ee020a9bd4e3fc45bf65685f
202833638f9711929fe0460a03f7b6d97edb6892
292573 F20101209_AAAHKK kobylinski_k_Page_069.jp2
615ba7ca0411289207c666308231a038
8282f049458d16be7908790a4fb593af6bfb556b
115520 F20101209_AAAHJV kobylinski_k_Page_048.jp2
dc454219210c484d8826e037fd03309d
daa3b77afd7b659bc219d47bd8813a9d855c186f
249361 F20101209_AAAHKL kobylinski_k_Page_070.jp2
6e53114330275376e8896c536f83dbb8
f2833d662da4f6128353ff32521955131a668a20
48837 F20101209_AAAHJW kobylinski_k_Page_049.jp2
c215823a5ad1e9ecff3b69c4cb670188
2e3d0c4fdd29b697621385fc513444ec9a7c1847
252464 F20101209_AAAHKM kobylinski_k_Page_071.jp2
286f084ee1b8cfe0b8504a205a046faf
f53bd892f73a4a08b928d937677e9584ca48c7bd
107899 F20101209_AAAHJX kobylinski_k_Page_050.jp2
9caada95a400c3244ce048f5783aa763
5032ea80ccd9e85cc899388ee22d2b91d704e0e4
109957 F20101209_AAAHLA kobylinski_k_Page_089.jp2
be2668ecc32bd4205c0faa004972ab58
9df99370fb81145464a7c0f91f2ee5a844f89772
116152 F20101209_AAAHKN kobylinski_k_Page_072.jp2
4b13c5667da973bf419a848615343956
41c47d0101a48b7f57424941f7db40bd5de00330
123543 F20101209_AAAHJY kobylinski_k_Page_051.jp2
71611b00763c1dbb2329f99f22a8e19e
c88781efcfc584bd2f9df516bfe34c0bc417efd4
115191 F20101209_AAAHLB kobylinski_k_Page_090.jp2
88e41da33b4c9dc378fefda12d3ed32f
f7515881212f159ad781c3c808a37891a558ccdc
117197 F20101209_AAAHKO kobylinski_k_Page_075.jp2
f452494cc63f3ddb58151de51fcda4eb
ede7988f2aee89b12375ac9ff7a3476fd4bf4325
118517 F20101209_AAAHJZ kobylinski_k_Page_052.jp2
b96b1f53710d7bbd20f62f77914de070
8b65107fcf32244389a07584934351ad8ae241cc
110719 F20101209_AAAHLC kobylinski_k_Page_093.jp2
17447d324971fa60239306fb13cc1b67
e1e571965366ec34fee8c0526ac580908c7fd3f4
115502 F20101209_AAAHKP kobylinski_k_Page_076.jp2
0b522c992801278fbec057782023bcd0
534a45417080c686963a81c095f88469440c10a4
112644 F20101209_AAAHLD kobylinski_k_Page_094.jp2
af59a6a855a689da9a5af99188b31138
b019dad71d563e475c6dae9aac8500c2d2a2b03d
117502 F20101209_AAAHKQ kobylinski_k_Page_077.jp2
1dcf07df156a89ad84afe477262c9059
b8b4a7ef343faffb9c88c00c50357f827333094d
115264 F20101209_AAAHLE kobylinski_k_Page_095.jp2
5ffef3f4e563f9e23202f29d29dcc190
8cedcc470216ff371defa32d0d9ec45e4db49e3d
117225 F20101209_AAAHLF kobylinski_k_Page_097.jp2
5ae9363913c7d43769ff61c0d9cd3797
5d7ef4ebecc466dc074a731992750f2aabddb6c3
113589 F20101209_AAAHKR kobylinski_k_Page_078.jp2
32e0e292ae568adef5f26e6cb962d1a5
930215cbf4727f93c88a5a9643ab523cbbce9abe
110484 F20101209_AAAHLG kobylinski_k_Page_098.jp2
d1ed43b74fac80fd8478b7a95c10982f
57cc7f81c98f33a8df55d9489ebe87b62a644da3
122318 F20101209_AAAHKS kobylinski_k_Page_079.jp2
3d86a56119ed0050dc3abeeebe00b942
51ac41cc62ba1170ceb3c995da52a9e3de994692
77066 F20101209_AAAHLH kobylinski_k_Page_099.jp2
65071da69409c1787050acf0fb1bbb08
0919860080e921dfdb838e81ff3da26d4a669aec
118844 F20101209_AAAHKT kobylinski_k_Page_082.jp2
60f95f53e85a7863877a98a2dca0b5b6
28a6feaeb7da3f7b2acf02337edb521d4394d169
64187 F20101209_AAAHLI kobylinski_k_Page_100.jp2
1ae6fe57815efd3c4277f3ac11cf8870
ccfe48dd4cf347710ef7fb6d2112eb6ecb728902
116535 F20101209_AAAHKU kobylinski_k_Page_083.jp2
170634d2a998c124adcfa7fe8a0011a2
e849cd99ed319ae2ad6c4c0b48f84f030c4506a0
35070 F20101209_AAAHLJ kobylinski_k_Page_101.jp2
c148fbda5a3ec19b40bb7f8fee134934
0d0d0531933448f86c992fd7f7ef90367394a035
82553 F20101209_AAAHKV kobylinski_k_Page_084.jp2
cccbfad7972584f39673fd4f2985a4f0
4a8f29c1af8728eb85947680f4296e93857293eb
1051979 F20101209_AAAHLK kobylinski_k_Page_102.jp2
bb9488aee436fe76e5d8ca58a56bb209
615257a836accb16d1aa1421cdba9ff496e1b1fe
82042 F20101209_AAAHKW kobylinski_k_Page_085.jp2
c6238088f2036646fe82caeb31b6ae5d
b81d6321eb4f8793b856e1472ed46428019fee81
F20101209_AAAHLL kobylinski_k_Page_103.jp2
5891dd0d85861f51433f3107b511c350
5af936f66b45c1f2112953008c7678199f16177c
65180 F20101209_AAAHKX kobylinski_k_Page_086.jp2
15dc1d6477e908e0b1aafefb7991c499
d6b6f7ae9586c1bf2db60d74798741e9896e1b21
66604 F20101209_AAAHMA kobylinski_k_Page_121.jp2
d0fd17a1d763a8f72d0e3ad60aeb2b19
f970b78cb91e97f9571a72c013f9142c6dd3a9b4
1051929 F20101209_AAAHLM kobylinski_k_Page_104.jp2
e10daba4144b90e3e606d05dfa5fa940
e3a8e97bbbdedb91a8682701871937370b3f350d
100885 F20101209_AAAHKY kobylinski_k_Page_087.jp2
e654a16fb6b7d465a2c39e1cda652504
ac0d4ea53268f22a0296ec00b5631b01842fe97b
37381 F20101209_AAAHMB kobylinski_k_Page_123.jp2
c26a4d37d12437c8b440a95b22f35f8c
6f4212ce15d64f2cf50eecb561feba12944cb597
103518 F20101209_AAAHLN kobylinski_k_Page_105.jp2
cee7cd035f983a20736c0c2798e7e6ac
3dd474bac26b83304464a590f7af2c426584c7fa
111747 F20101209_AAAHKZ kobylinski_k_Page_088.jp2
f0e8bb5e53cb7f9f49e5e75b9f765209
02749eb48ef0094bec38a059ba5955130233e5b3
47058 F20101209_AAAHMC kobylinski_k_Page_125.jp2
61de49978c306ab7a1d7add5e42802cc
274fed304dfcdfe1a6e3ca8bfa410dcfef1d8fce
115908 F20101209_AAAHLO kobylinski_k_Page_107.jp2
bcffdaf5af9538e887d86dbc337fd414
7fd5d51b887a000934b1432f1435d0d98c771a0b
40257 F20101209_AAAHMD kobylinski_k_Page_126.jp2
f8ecade3413e1049707886c05a681e69
9e555bb72cb7f1b9b4568038c8eef8d6cc7f8d3b
108904 F20101209_AAAHLP kobylinski_k_Page_108.jp2
ffa5674c6adf2f0b5a97a4970daa100c
8cb6ae3f7610f6a309d3bef4d5bee6c38f1e35f7
31529 F20101209_AAAHME kobylinski_k_Page_127.jp2
962e8d410051e3305eade795e7abbf85
2938c48e65be60e665926bc82aeccc339c2ec2cf
112251 F20101209_AAAHLQ kobylinski_k_Page_109.jp2
53b113a3fda55dc4e8f27073bb581ebb
b73add3a9cc968171363fb90926a7ff416b1e881
111552 F20101209_AAAHMF kobylinski_k_Page_128.jp2
41cc6c5879081edc81988a74d00fc9b8
0ff189072ba6fbcfcde69f388e6eabf7107c1ab4
20185 F20101209_AAAHLR kobylinski_k_Page_110.jp2
a7f99bdfc89ef0431e5072b81de9b714
00d11b2b120046a45feaf28a5c4f8788d355f1b8
120821 F20101209_AAAHMG kobylinski_k_Page_129.jp2
f83cd6ce9a5da8b3adf19694a3e25741
b84f9da7da74bca24f775a044f3ff8e74a43c327
112259 F20101209_AAAHMH kobylinski_k_Page_130.jp2
ab2101e99f68a33a05d41a1f09093f02
6fa11e42f2374c42a7b06e2340d3ce34a8fa698f
44020 F20101209_AAAHLS kobylinski_k_Page_111.jp2
6271ce649d2456a28fe3c38010313c1d
f566f80bb5c501c6854d92aa4f6ef5b1d447e442
116398 F20101209_AAAHMI kobylinski_k_Page_131.jp2
2187d0d68ede6900dbe0d3f08bbc5a26
7df9bfb78bab0e142771e52ed3bde0c6fbde4063
31726 F20101209_AAAHLT kobylinski_k_Page_112.jp2
dfcdc7e3388f81704ab25cbf40e50a22
02dc0531addc333ee04912b0ff3047216453ce23
119726 F20101209_AAAHMJ kobylinski_k_Page_133.jp2
21f9b8d892f579cf049fcbaaddf2e176
15008640657f71514ba0590b6e98357e0be6c554
403615 F20101209_AAAHLU kobylinski_k_Page_113.jp2
28efbfdbbfa7d29da5d5005b3b909459
fd6d8ddb3c589acee08f73b90cb4bf2b7eb97432
34726 F20101209_AAAHMK kobylinski_k_Page_136.jp2
5a32e148e7b11d08b038a09019fd6c0b
131247ab6b3ed53ee752bb40fa97bc1edeabad86
108862 F20101209_AAAHLV kobylinski_k_Page_116.jp2
01be1a813aa089573a242313f59401f2
195aff9570c3b568f7ac46e76358fbd1a9dce415
31046 F20101209_AAAHML kobylinski_k_Page_137.jp2
b6691abf31f5568731d13442fbf09ee4
0705e7e06a29062cc269efee314e901dc9d0af7d
104341 F20101209_AAAHLW kobylinski_k_Page_117.jp2
50c8454f97b84ec42238f34c410a4988
5f9abd7a0a4bcdfbcba3e307a5926df46c732678
135259 F20101209_AAAHNA kobylinski_k_Page_155.jp2
4f4e64cb1b9221157fbd9b27c1f3f9eb
4137a03c22697a2fee995e109ecf2f1eecedae34
227415 F20101209_AAAHMM kobylinski_k_Page_138.jp2
b5ad95983fc43aa0cd46ee0158a9e020
2184fe7fff07728fd43dd297b5d74264655a7ee1
118883 F20101209_AAAHLX kobylinski_k_Page_118.jp2
e1e44e54a207ce0b1621d1be3565c583
c6857d769d9a4227123e63097f25c94039afbfd8
137405 F20101209_AAAHNB kobylinski_k_Page_156.jp2
8262cede333e253192c47333643edd07
0f542e420aedd89c572eb789bc1230fc3bb9a093
242044 F20101209_AAAHMN kobylinski_k_Page_139.jp2
49954cee5819e110886f1b88ca4e1ec4
f3c49009718b8ddb9a6c5212385eb6eedb7c94b9
112175 F20101209_AAAHLY kobylinski_k_Page_119.jp2
fbcfb8dd9a8a78b81feaa75c4c8978e7
670a94c95bb2012c79fc33f722e597a91eb4e83b
132085 F20101209_AAAHNC kobylinski_k_Page_158.jp2
4a6209fc8128bba8f1f4ea34db6109f9
2671e73a952b6ec69803068462210d9d4e5779ee
237094 F20101209_AAAHMO kobylinski_k_Page_140.jp2
c2c89e136e91d9a7c0cc7ad73ce67bb4
3b0c107227226d488bca70475f64bee828bc0336
108704 F20101209_AAAHLZ kobylinski_k_Page_120.jp2
e4df5d93d0b0acaa67792e9d057e55c3
ca1d5aa02bbfbe76a9df4d86a7633e1710dccae4
130300 F20101209_AAAHND kobylinski_k_Page_160.jp2
0b50f7eedb3ad57387b72d2793dd0efc
358ddf7b629447051e4fcd5143c2cd08cdd64920
227266 F20101209_AAAHMP kobylinski_k_Page_141.jp2
0eac35142b74083cf1d937efc650ffa4
abced1d95e2b52f72cb0a18a71e26b43d41a950e
140104 F20101209_AAAHNE kobylinski_k_Page_161.jp2
988f450c2d2309b247b47fc843612d3c
c4d052f400b621e8f588c0be27024fe3420aa5df
197068 F20101209_AAAHMQ kobylinski_k_Page_142.jp2
6200598c8642b5669f7af452e5862028
b2e7ed262221817464a3ceadb25a113afb771039
139933 F20101209_AAAHNF kobylinski_k_Page_162.jp2
b9cfe5f9e9226a25eef6803de55d4fe5
caf235699a0a39030b56b36e9b9d5be965aa96ec
191725 F20101209_AAAHMR kobylinski_k_Page_143.jp2
df3f94350ce07a55b6a7b410542191b1
d857c9620c1f09418b1fcec4b134a027d6238230
132537 F20101209_AAAHNG kobylinski_k_Page_163.jp2
1b45fbdf67289b62c20d1add1ee0f993
8117c943bb79ad2183da1bd450b4fd56b0afe174
175676 F20101209_AAAHMS kobylinski_k_Page_144.jp2
b7b0c3dff2832301f9d32c558f1c6282
7857e58e611866e0c77287d41434fe2b33010da4
51996 F20101209_AAAHNH kobylinski_k_Page_165.jp2
6226304cb083047d075de0a976eb8dc6
fc9fd378a7e10d81752b69ae4040d2fd33cb7b94
79730 F20101209_AAAHNI kobylinski_k_Page_166.jp2
bcf715aa6409c2f5e6ab5d302aea6dbe
42f48c35fbb42afbc0d2beaacc92ea8663e93783
226837 F20101209_AAAHMT kobylinski_k_Page_145.jp2
6683cab25653b41aa75f3b935d5c1dfa
007b78dd85a1c6843c46121de7f3a179f1484811
F20101209_AAAHNJ kobylinski_k_Page_001.tif
9fee9cfb0019d3415d1bec98d6b551d6
02b2d1bcb2b409420ee90297cf72cbdec96767b2
129209 F20101209_AAAHMU kobylinski_k_Page_148.jp2
ea8770169580826738da3aa23246b3a1
2e2a7df0b655398515f5817cea37538bfbf3fb6b
F20101209_AAAHNK kobylinski_k_Page_002.tif
4e3c2f1079a86834ff9dbff8aafd1c34
62cceb7a678028c2402a7ad3403a2efa2327136f
135329 F20101209_AAAHMV kobylinski_k_Page_149.jp2
ed732d2ca096c994b83818fb15ae9655
b34ae826a67c49d146e6e695a672078879b469b3
F20101209_AAAHNL kobylinski_k_Page_003.tif
53929d97fb095a9c0b39e41459da9639
d8f37cfa823aad1dd2fa527b25ffcd8f2b4dd392
F20101209_AAAHMW kobylinski_k_Page_150.jp2
a795e1262f4a0caed5f9cd35b1114378
836ad81061822f68004938abce081596583bf284
F20101209_AAAHNM kobylinski_k_Page_004.tif
6d78d0e82bf43d2be30b18721369315d
b949a42f7df5289cc1b2f7fd561818c3bba49fd7
126911 F20101209_AAAHMX kobylinski_k_Page_151.jp2
2d86955c36c89bbd4f66da6daf426b98
ee815d998b168b16e103777cd92706d46940906d
F20101209_AAAHOA kobylinski_k_Page_024.tif
a288062f90a33af270330ebd76a737cf
7b455cf42c83f164c622b2aeeea5316f9f62ebe1
F20101209_AAAHNN kobylinski_k_Page_007.tif
a5ec38af172ae3e5eeaf1841c2209b88
04f12977084c86635353d5b4afe5c157d605bf30
135408 F20101209_AAAHMY kobylinski_k_Page_152.jp2
8d37ae79a94145445cad001b4b6bd356
b13a5a5a5acad74906273e92c281ddd110695dc2
F20101209_AAAHOB kobylinski_k_Page_025.tif
327f8536260b04d195fa95be7082868d
703c1b658791ba59311dcf75b0566171b843a6d3
F20101209_AAAHNO kobylinski_k_Page_009.tif
48b47c4dd6141a3e49bbf9887fcdfdc2
cdc15e37b669974e0c1edb0f2882f2e6061cce4b
125363 F20101209_AAAHMZ kobylinski_k_Page_153.jp2
6af28a0d340b87b87097c0345082ba9b
24df9966da7239d9aaf098911c74bd2d2e935081
F20101209_AAAHOC kobylinski_k_Page_026.tif
e0110387a35908e1af0a85efd3fc6596
388da543848df9dfad64d40b11ba8f0b46047793
F20101209_AAAHNP kobylinski_k_Page_010.tif
6e0b941aa222d56497c644648c582826
d4f43fea11204483060a22b51706234c2f5e24a5
F20101209_AAAHOD kobylinski_k_Page_028.tif
df0c9280202cd6b7e8a6ec3220e33c1c
7535bb77c16957d495cff3a6da4a9e641c8b2315
F20101209_AAAHNQ kobylinski_k_Page_011.tif
aa2dd5ebd4e1b79c79e653b382a59b56
ec45f31e0f8474e4b97c497f18de2e66f3b20d26
F20101209_AAAHOE kobylinski_k_Page_030.tif
5b3cdee4890604d730c8eccd7945968c
061d8e65ebcfa2e16493c4640dc0e0844606c603
F20101209_AAAHNR kobylinski_k_Page_012.tif
6f870b7667ee305e5bd5340af6ada973
19a51528b66beef8876467c0f11e9e7f6842f4c4
F20101209_AAAHOF kobylinski_k_Page_031.tif
86cb8896eaa120916b114975be09d0ab
9522317d2ae34191e7abe39882f13f9df3743a7a
F20101209_AAAHNS kobylinski_k_Page_013.tif
00f52b2e2b9c30158cf40a0ca948047c
906bfdbc00a326bbbe67f26ed9fd09474938eca5
F20101209_AAAHOG kobylinski_k_Page_032.tif
ba48ccd5ce3b04f79bc354c1cfec7b43
0c12e77698afefc0b797cc5e300549373af9fcda
F20101209_AAAHNT kobylinski_k_Page_014.tif
c891fb0318a3f083c18bc1494c542804
273d4acd5565bf839dceaee8ac44975008f7c187
F20101209_AAAHOH kobylinski_k_Page_034.tif
7e551b6c66050378179aa230891795e1
c7c47db3ba486eabbf8433efbad6fad128f67095
F20101209_AAAHOI kobylinski_k_Page_037.tif
f6c78e8391656fbc905edac0586458c6
e3095776639e0953cb1b1af882350271a343deda
F20101209_AAAHNU kobylinski_k_Page_015.tif
4c819088419c1b398ccd6fc2fecc9c7f
1a79ab482342b349fa34c2dc5598035f04069aa6
F20101209_AAAHOJ kobylinski_k_Page_038.tif
614347f18d5fc626449f162ae35dbca0
6f1afa77519aefe0c02a88c450dab45f9ef494ab
F20101209_AAAHOK kobylinski_k_Page_039.tif
b07f5e557906c628c4f33e457ba6f30c
b691872c032d3e97fa319cbf6aa0d2551bed8f84
F20101209_AAAHNV kobylinski_k_Page_016.tif
3a05746f21d0b74670ed911919feb51d
f5904b653348ddcaadb44397cb89fed42dd8206c
F20101209_AAAHOL kobylinski_k_Page_040.tif
fb9794e8e2886ff20b74809aee2e5ceb
ea65a83062c48d256a597b8b24ace4c2ec5014d8
F20101209_AAAHNW kobylinski_k_Page_017.tif
1bfe58c60a4d6ca8cc77ea9f3d547fa8
e0d4b7d148fbf1cb1ec64ade5902212d8f4a4553
F20101209_AAAHPA kobylinski_k_Page_056.tif
08266cff28aff4c8642daf7d5cc3aec9
7ad03b0c32a3a3a8376bfcbf0fabb29159d683af
F20101209_AAAHOM kobylinski_k_Page_042.tif
a7b97f4d02232a871168dd79a91ca5d4
5b684a699620065101b2f8e9016a24282617b474
F20101209_AAAHNX kobylinski_k_Page_018.tif
e4a9e966d62f259b5beed756ade4cfe1
26c5b444809f3966ec4d64a60b2873c69dfa26ca
F20101209_AAAHPB kobylinski_k_Page_057.tif
3bb20cfac1a45f1b0360ca9f92cb3b9d
8d2fe5dbdd0a4195e77d20c8d2281a00ea701b6e
F20101209_AAAHON kobylinski_k_Page_043.tif
811a6d86211d82a7d31dcdcaa12b0cce
252cae7c71781b6795db80349cf047ce6eb0f55b
F20101209_AAAHNY kobylinski_k_Page_019.tif
763c62f54f7eed3a1ead3af94d785c7e
8d8dc666a420c10cb4a18c12bbb05ebf004255d8
F20101209_AAAHPC kobylinski_k_Page_058.tif
de732b29a21feeddb0edfb834bb8ab7e
e15c3fe89e3adce83084bc7e6c769e6a73a17b25
F20101209_AAAHOO kobylinski_k_Page_044.tif
b23ef18441542a81379b6458a39a0979
4f306c6c0680c2b34040af4942b42309d0ff9822
F20101209_AAAHNZ kobylinski_k_Page_020.tif
4a7aeb63af0e6b913c0b39684815d1bd
95fecfd7defc7968228cdbefd8d8197564a0be75
F20101209_AAAHPD kobylinski_k_Page_059.tif
0d241c1b4c07212167968a385130dae8
d587545f974575d56f7d3fe7ac50955b845ff03c
F20101209_AAAHOP kobylinski_k_Page_045.tif
b9a38ade34a0113520dc84a3ba01fd19
ea343120e445e21c984b0a6c3f2956df4d9f0d7b
F20101209_AAAHPE kobylinski_k_Page_060.tif
45ae159ad592207b30035445e6b30daf
0d3124bbeb024cff43fc934d3f12607bfe9e9709
F20101209_AAAHOQ kobylinski_k_Page_046.tif
eeaca60d3634795c51ba718bbf56cb15
f62f3403cdfcb5b23f0352c310d6cbeffe3ba2e2
F20101209_AAAHPF kobylinski_k_Page_061.tif
4ef1d82b50be920b4f7df156d55923db
b64f64db615fed01cdef0523d6de51505d8eb0a0
F20101209_AAAHOR kobylinski_k_Page_047.tif
9c8df0378c3a477a888764d75c4a5ddf
ca75fdaa92b1e37d94e5e612e1aa33014f5c4988
F20101209_AAAHPG kobylinski_k_Page_062.tif
86830774873c27c21295be4a0a47dfac
536e143ad9615fc5eb9755e73cff0e832a51836c
F20101209_AAAHOS kobylinski_k_Page_048.tif
804b75337b511588d650791cf14a1592
60c9ada62b1c3afa9a47a9fdc7feffe1aafdd3c1
F20101209_AAAHPH kobylinski_k_Page_064.tif
18176ae4dac0aa67322a9f3884cb094f
53f99440cf4bd0f58602fbecdbd7c1777945ee5e
F20101209_AAAHOT kobylinski_k_Page_049.tif
5bf5415339b71b2ebec68e0012b17ef3
f222489a09ee44166a67541cef0587c832f5d935
25265604 F20101209_AAAHPI kobylinski_k_Page_065.tif
7c573a9e44e2ff6b99d9e7bd91fe1d25
9b33221e75129e09b30aac70fe37e85adaed0e65
F20101209_AAAHOU kobylinski_k_Page_050.tif
3d5d0fd6351e78b7bc754679260b936e
0e1c1dcda2997800d204d09aa4987d441564086e
F20101209_AAAHPJ kobylinski_k_Page_066.tif
5b86ef5a550f1038781d4fb2b6e9e560
2ca100131262cad683f2f06015530e0f524b109c
F20101209_AAAHPK kobylinski_k_Page_067.tif
07ec3605fce13f2e2892ce9f59522e35
36ddb49ca661f3d80c9a1853dde272b3c079197d
F20101209_AAAHOV kobylinski_k_Page_051.tif
3675e2b41f43fdd8424d931ac9b0f9dd
e1214bb1c1d7a3a2725a1ecc689f71f67bf310ec
F20101209_AAAHPL kobylinski_k_Page_068.tif
0800af8f458c0e1c638b920ed5048f95
38f4f5f061e8d6b87852f74318216ac007d0bca0
F20101209_AAAHOW kobylinski_k_Page_052.tif
922caa17bc3d1563f0b21140e0d180ee
9455afe0746c6e4a9e9de525cd14e4a398c4d436
F20101209_AAAHPM kobylinski_k_Page_069.tif
e2e24b06bb2ac0f800696ac337ed4a8d
05fa384b1bffa04cfc3c36c6101a5906aca8cd18
F20101209_AAAHOX kobylinski_k_Page_053.tif
73ca947d257ebf9cc23d5c985267dbeb
037ed43070199346b6a01a7162d860f7219d9d40
F20101209_AAAHQA kobylinski_k_Page_085.tif
0b24cdff046ce6c9dbb558b13731ba78
d057c8d87fbea08edf6e51e44a71503881141fa0
F20101209_AAAHPN kobylinski_k_Page_070.tif
34ed1761bd76bb4b650501d948279d52
6bccc2775d7d902eaee6fafb89419eccc92e85f9
F20101209_AAAHOY kobylinski_k_Page_054.tif
40a0721823197d02a160d5d3b13d68da
20fc98a54a479d3e8f70cd78114c4be7da6a880c
F20101209_AAAHQB kobylinski_k_Page_086.tif
a76213ca91e1fb3351174df5d2acc790
89aad4e347ccc32377fe3afb8a01eb28a5550b38
F20101209_AAAHPO kobylinski_k_Page_072.tif
2dd2d462276ff2187d451007d15dc268
612d6d4f5d6d32d550ca258db18b409ce223fc18
F20101209_AAAHOZ kobylinski_k_Page_055.tif
2f9f36dc9fb9abe8410589b744bf4036
bccb888ae221a09582a7e6eae3f87c65223374bc
F20101209_AAAHQC kobylinski_k_Page_087.tif
33eddafe22ad52d5475313334df73969
cea4f0b86a01d53ba4bdfb54bb8c8e06e78b2015
F20101209_AAAHPP kobylinski_k_Page_073.tif
20e87feffadf6588e9f4aea16601800c
6703e6b81ba787c2d29f74e16262e068777e8dc2
F20101209_AAAHQD kobylinski_k_Page_088.tif
7fed357f390e51df5c8ee612ec9aee02
d32131797cd79c6c3edc8b39526fb7973edd9fbd
F20101209_AAAHPQ kobylinski_k_Page_074.tif
647268b20ba803573386f57d2d8769e8
ab62b2b82f2f2f3b59b516f9d4e6c846f073d37a
F20101209_AAAHQE kobylinski_k_Page_089.tif
5d7d3771e6a51c335f81876e24efb65a
e1306a11cbb21da22c41396e7056b372e28d26b0
F20101209_AAAHPR kobylinski_k_Page_075.tif
4400f7bb9a356f3db19cfd9566e3ca7e
f91f4d8f8718f76b33a4a8c64d99281060fc86da
F20101209_AAAHQF kobylinski_k_Page_090.tif
2e01d5b3eaf8d30a88ae2e6eb4680c78
ebb113763a871c8abd2b430cec256013fd7e5469
F20101209_AAAHPS kobylinski_k_Page_076.tif
67c09bbb0621e35bad31df418a9319c7
74ff495fe9b72f9cced7e843547fd0c497076393
F20101209_AAAHQG kobylinski_k_Page_092.tif
b51582a03f5fee0a2fa3804eb0339a9b
a37603ed815398287910ac3cb58b85389b60a13b
F20101209_AAAHPT kobylinski_k_Page_077.tif
f2e07283e9fb1bbcd49d98a5c03d143d
9a537fad53e54835346a2720c769896453f35b05
F20101209_AAAHQH kobylinski_k_Page_094.tif
d4b51728ba03ecab6f96333f67dd5c27
c6112ddc7007638b630ab03eef017b9407fee92a
F20101209_AAAHPU kobylinski_k_Page_079.tif
4966fa6d4ed8f647045335580c720d61
4e77b4f9171de345ea8608d1cceee13f2d83ee23
F20101209_AAAHQI kobylinski_k_Page_095.tif
ce2ebba14ca4d9c98fd94ed65e62f0bd
a4fc5fe8c06389dd88eeb8b5e9c0121424703f56
F20101209_AAAHPV kobylinski_k_Page_080.tif
b735b5074bcdccc62fea897d7c247147
ad16536039b82439159d391a2523294c3794f611
F20101209_AAAHQJ kobylinski_k_Page_096.tif
03bc9936cb483e737d644433ab371aef
f25222d907d765071afbb759baf0240ac32f3ab5
F20101209_AAAHQK kobylinski_k_Page_100.tif
00f3e06f90c859eb0baa22379a71f995
05d2254a848996ab02b2a7ac3dbbec02e995e3b7
F20101209_AAAHPW kobylinski_k_Page_081.tif
9e4618c465d97cb72ed8a5cc59018603
33292cd4dc9727e2878836c903b1dde61086ff4f
F20101209_AAAHQL kobylinski_k_Page_101.tif
c54e9c167792d1286be3ba4ab445aaaf
09b545f875355537bc2e62daebd472e122bb74f7
F20101209_AAAHPX kobylinski_k_Page_082.tif
b88bd56af37f52c245b9d0334da6993c
9c5bf2f127f528dbf1509e7cdd82f568cc5ae803
F20101209_AAAHRA kobylinski_k_Page_116.tif
afe08071d14054188686ae0eee3b0577
fb61322ab2a8ada81d1c212cd3dc55ee8dc6eacd
F20101209_AAAHQM kobylinski_k_Page_102.tif
89b4f88738aa842f5b4018ed39556c9d
272cd1d2ec57bb7ea298004ab0cfc479516c1c90
F20101209_AAAHPY kobylinski_k_Page_083.tif
5eda1a24f5973bf8d47e0b9aa7bb0d33
64f9610fb79b4e12101f858689293d31d19503f0
F20101209_AAAHRB kobylinski_k_Page_117.tif
dc857705558a7c2581182a0c2a6b2e2b
c657c8f54dc5ca68aa5070037826663e7363b341
F20101209_AAAHQN kobylinski_k_Page_103.tif
1df97bdc35aac7e0d15f4b2bf3cc50b7
488f043cdcd3e204c217f590e0be2f3ef9d1f6fe
F20101209_AAAHPZ kobylinski_k_Page_084.tif
ce0432e5ff71ac0b1fcf560e0cdb2e3a
6c9b949884c65770c6562927c275c5dd9e178ca5
F20101209_AAAHRC kobylinski_k_Page_121.tif
17e92b454441bd8cf3ca142ff9e98d53
ddcfe29cbe96bc909834f6d0077f55bb6923e587
F20101209_AAAHQO kobylinski_k_Page_104.tif
4bc1141e7a5529fb633a58264fd736be
4bc01b1f83590444bcd1d42b332ca57eb2b08baa
F20101209_AAAHRD kobylinski_k_Page_122.tif
43d4ef1d8aa15f8d0d465e044883b382
99212c69c3b10c93a8192936e9a4aec9283954f7
F20101209_AAAHQP kobylinski_k_Page_105.tif
f184355405da4a3e8b896b8a89ffde74
ce65be65beafab4868172d74aabf09768a1bf58d
F20101209_AAAHRE kobylinski_k_Page_123.tif
4da14ccc8f448cf7a00f00d6e72e07f4
d02e0c50eca26a664f9bdc74868a73694b265276
F20101209_AAAHQQ kobylinski_k_Page_106.tif
a382fd1c3f12c73537530fcf9dbba992
a03dceeee5b293e8a99b5d2f0fa879045aa17991
F20101209_AAAHRF kobylinski_k_Page_125.tif
8e5c2635f47a189a88afa01b0b6abdbe
fd83fcbaec54301d49e193816ddce3f394feeaae
F20101209_AAAHQR kobylinski_k_Page_107.tif
a7a25783cb63b35fbf7572565151cdbd
fe302eca87f325f7d95eaef3e1c6d4fe0bc007b4
F20101209_AAAHRG kobylinski_k_Page_126.tif
5e40ade49bb461d2a35e325a661da254
dd7b599bec2e4cf570349b70a1f7d3985cbebc76
F20101209_AAAHQS kobylinski_k_Page_108.tif
4adac6484334d91cc1df753776ec3b62
4feda00c9e10298879bc72eaf9880d84d32b8d8d
F20101209_AAAHRH kobylinski_k_Page_128.tif
bf6bdba1047abdce2a41642ad3ac32a9
4e58c7dc3750b1d928b1c305f2d266d4c45944c6
F20101209_AAAHQT kobylinski_k_Page_109.tif
e749faa99d89d79b4bae26688a73966b
7101e95ec2561f3823829ebc660d5ede124d5b70
F20101209_AAAHRI kobylinski_k_Page_129.tif
bfaabe3795532468cb92fecb8ca700e5
0a82add18dd0188b142ceaf683c5c127694b37e9
F20101209_AAAHQU kobylinski_k_Page_110.tif
2c0fdb3b6864d72074914e2fc14523c3
67b7e09feeed7980e740a6dbadffa0a197878a2a
F20101209_AAAHRJ kobylinski_k_Page_130.tif
6f72f364ba4497f98e0b1cfee583f49d
7b5bef9418d8d96dce9a0865e460eec6eba55312
F20101209_AAAHQV kobylinski_k_Page_111.tif
8e38206709ecd82776a328645309509a
064836689fdd14293d4b305622b230ce1e3e9684
F20101209_AAAHRK kobylinski_k_Page_131.tif
d2910b78d5b3bf5c010e4f1509971e4c
3d33ec3c889eadb3e481e058ff0b201d9d54578e
F20101209_AAAHQW kobylinski_k_Page_112.tif
7768240b4e43ab89de0f0b2cb447aab5
45363e8b4f16f7d04dc26c41580b6c028f48482d
F20101209_AAAHRL kobylinski_k_Page_132.tif
0c31bbbe5668597828dcb01b8a3eae87
9c9ca73e8ddd42d5ea55ef2d6a21450a61616a62
F20101209_AAAHSA kobylinski_k_Page_149.tif
ba1bf97f98b802281917370d747615b3
7361353bf0adae60c52183f5c69e581ff24e61eb
F20101209_AAAHRM kobylinski_k_Page_133.tif
a3e71ed76b880ee2bcfed985d57d3c7b
367c5d389f8634ae36b8ca978890cda06a418c8c
F20101209_AAAHQX kobylinski_k_Page_113.tif
fc996f0206a0cde7e6e836565ea74353
4d3532fdd4706ba4a753f96fe1eb3dc155be30b2
F20101209_AAAHSB kobylinski_k_Page_150.tif
e5c2afeddf6a777b469a494dae09c793
adee2526eb129c4004afeb82569d709bf244c2b6
F20101209_AAAHRN kobylinski_k_Page_134.tif
c048592135ce04870aef8358e619ea42
0ae50a330cafe6d0f3c2de4983a817f0a70301a3
F20101209_AAAHQY kobylinski_k_Page_114.tif
cadbb42905e8a7189b5af43f213c31b7
2ff4021c971ea23cb3e291711f247b8cf68f8dc3
F20101209_AAAHSC kobylinski_k_Page_151.tif
c8b378966609eaa1e8087c8e187031cc
1b2e8d5a7a6168e91f91d345b0890e998bed8ec5
F20101209_AAAHRO kobylinski_k_Page_135.tif
21832e236fc14c47f0daf61c56f4aadf
a61a22501e8c992d74a904167eaca0ed69b02495
F20101209_AAAHQZ kobylinski_k_Page_115.tif
c2ca022c1f83a52ea8062fd40aa1fd58
83020b764cd1f20fa4059cb534db6ccd8f3daea0
F20101209_AAAHSD kobylinski_k_Page_156.tif
00418229d47addea379b866e47ad991f
385ef600cfa918cce38ed131e2c2edaf833ab4c6
F20101209_AAAHRP kobylinski_k_Page_136.tif
c6bc1e070926abda966d67c4480e9710
e55cec6f258d8f388aef80d65860fa6b7065588f
F20101209_AAAHSE kobylinski_k_Page_157.tif
0855e95b9c18dd3db5aaeb0903089e61
c9137ad25bf43fcdad2479c6db677b281a6f0c86
F20101209_AAAHRQ kobylinski_k_Page_137.tif
d47d403877856da14674109c4803bd04
aa38e1e01ae97fdec02834b524c16a29390c7a19
F20101209_AAAHSF kobylinski_k_Page_158.tif
2a33c0079722b6a6848b1d62d910d0fe
c2301d0ec708d64ed540b71192df5dff0a9c69ff
F20101209_AAAHRR kobylinski_k_Page_138.tif
becfb2e93cb5be14dc84899f449ea339
596e20a7c8c243802ca340d85a8a2f4fce89702f
F20101209_AAAHSG kobylinski_k_Page_159.tif
777fb49c7fc725fcb22ef08fa202d1bc
b9fae7a8617a8750b735c8c05fa31651e8f4cdaf
F20101209_AAAHRS kobylinski_k_Page_139.tif
c47a562a8d46ad5bce8202d3967d7c41
a99d454b53694528b5edd77c1939bdd07f4ed805
F20101209_AAAHSH kobylinski_k_Page_161.tif
140b06186b53a4512627df94cc36b498
0f80d18dbded149fd21f30cf5f8e5f53cdf4d35b
F20101209_AAAHRT kobylinski_k_Page_141.tif
0d71468e6aca644110989aaf66c3f74a
e000be547075d7cba73546fc035f0d9a75861aaa
F20101209_AAAHSI kobylinski_k_Page_162.tif
f67a61389742de0474d0f4a3b6a91368
3aa4aecbb07da4bdcad40b281ad7fcd7279505fb
F20101209_AAAHRU kobylinski_k_Page_142.tif
224e33f5f0625ef41177e3d45a9636ce
a3eafdeeb1c4fbf7796399d93408151ace2e342f
F20101209_AAAHSJ kobylinski_k_Page_163.tif
543da40b823b2806d4f847a15cfc7811
26a911dced2a1bfb7385dcd8c88d02f35ae2fece
F20101209_AAAHRV kobylinski_k_Page_143.tif
a1e77ab1ea661582a9f1480bfcff298f
273880562e64477feeb46f90d2f9323a9d6cf5e8
F20101209_AAAHSK kobylinski_k_Page_164.tif
4176c7e13633cbf8ad4f6def585b5efb
e6eab9e59b9827e95ad7c99a0a2322b541a8b524
F20101209_AAAHRW kobylinski_k_Page_144.tif
196501cf9c0a56cec16228f928193812
08b3d60cac16acc33e355856e2149634122502e4
F20101209_AAAHSL kobylinski_k_Page_165.tif
2af9455dadd79dcd38eb112a81491551
8fd7137d9e925e120e08ba5253ab5cd5dd0bfdab
F20101209_AAAHRX kobylinski_k_Page_145.tif
2cb3cba428877b8928168389a71aed91
3735af1fabcd4a9a9b45c911a0de8d64f138cdd9
F20101209_AAAHSM kobylinski_k_Page_166.tif
f993afc99774392e7f37fcb23bd25a7a
8e9e7830580f1863dd81e90983436f3d3a90c786
51752 F20101209_AAAHTA kobylinski_k_Page_015.pro
2673f66293af9348a0ff96c4158a0a5b
de262af8f5b22ce9ef1d288481c326400b6f50f5
10149 F20101209_AAAHSN kobylinski_k_Page_001.pro
22fceef14ae9047dd25560c078cc7474
02ed4ad98d0f75c3104c94c7828e2b20845366a5
F20101209_AAAHRY kobylinski_k_Page_146.tif
167e968e53e744a4782dd166370f03e2
26a4f63537ed8d1e3251f40b71c1212935c4b0c1
53920 F20101209_AAAHTB kobylinski_k_Page_016.pro
84e545c44304bedd2b4bc178fdb830ae
c181d7a9379c5af01c1ed5090dc2820d040c1f74
1283 F20101209_AAAHSO kobylinski_k_Page_002.pro
f23111e540b3310a940e440ad252cb8b
b4ec1051aaeaf61fbec7bd3a402416526fbcf58c
F20101209_AAAHRZ kobylinski_k_Page_147.tif
e54d72a323f9f8b94027106e99151ffd
8aedd8fe1bc4aa34967c2179b1bbe80cb5df5171
55804 F20101209_AAAHTC kobylinski_k_Page_017.pro
99e32a9e60089a5ec820bc4c3deea802
1837536ea0c847b29441849eb11369c358856c0b
37712 F20101209_AAAHSP kobylinski_k_Page_003.pro
5f30e3c0cc0e688b10a62ab6d2f98f3a
0bd4fab5eecbd46b2154d3d87cad9d274331b070
50831 F20101209_AAAHTD kobylinski_k_Page_018.pro
2034b11231787ea45833eeb0ec07c4b7
52cec1ab85301b2de4431fd87e6afb477938aac6
98611 F20101209_AAAHSQ kobylinski_k_Page_004.pro
3c9daf0e57ce5482ba40e7c8246a5073
fda93f48e55319d1cc040a5fa56b96c1423f234d
55124 F20101209_AAAHTE kobylinski_k_Page_019.pro
711fe235d0015fe2b6badf032822c1d0
4412ddabdd8a35eeb894b3e462392d86ccb0aaf2
117124 F20101209_AAAHSR kobylinski_k_Page_005.pro
3f0575affa396507224527070dd77fc2
c04afb04aa28787e5d39cbac27ef97a848ddfe49
52710 F20101209_AAAHTF kobylinski_k_Page_020.pro
37a78d3c2ef10f430dfa734bee14bd15
963e4ebdbf8d736d17dd0cc8720cd1fc1239b431
68219 F20101209_AAAHSS kobylinski_k_Page_007.pro
6805e717e22ca22a346992048e6493da
e96d14ecb6820d44106a2fb63e484523cdf8f50f
53676 F20101209_AAAHTG kobylinski_k_Page_022.pro
4b270e4d1782a30c05f1c6413ef0fca0
e3469ea2b3024d861a84e27c3625bc251d655e76
54834 F20101209_AAAHTH kobylinski_k_Page_023.pro
c011acff1cbc31e8354e18a51ec99f5b
f864814882ecafa26969602cc695d730bed03cbd
14197 F20101209_AAAHST kobylinski_k_Page_008.pro
89b186c7edbe5b5ad3b62fc8f79f4826
77e206a230a37ad3f57f740290fb9ec567255b58
55253 F20101209_AAAHTI kobylinski_k_Page_024.pro
195db2fbf6c5cb4d70beeddd6d61f4ad
1a94ca4a04db3b1ab88087bbe4d6129b1832407f
61652 F20101209_AAAHSU kobylinski_k_Page_009.pro
6b3734b94a1bde57ee616ea685d96950
59a84d8906fc341dbaf31e94193f80baace7cd00
52536 F20101209_AAAHTJ kobylinski_k_Page_025.pro
17b3ecc6fbaafd01a417133ff0d4db9f
ae70eaa8254a521fc5ecabf9c13b577e5a46c2e6
43739 F20101209_AAAHSV kobylinski_k_Page_010.pro
c0b767066ad46bb102e4646de3d98b3c
8192bc015c6a96477b1219a6f90195653aba07cc
51623 F20101209_AAAHTK kobylinski_k_Page_026.pro
9dd997dd0a1ed6c634b73ff4b838d612
82fbbaa64b1f25f5e87e09d266b62dbfcb031eaf
54515 F20101209_AAAHSW kobylinski_k_Page_011.pro
45deca4d4bf2b627c29223de40d8e9d2
548d7cc7c192826fd11563363d2c77926dd8b1d1
50325 F20101209_AAAHTL kobylinski_k_Page_027.pro
2dbb51f6f2767386a7a4e99cd7a3faa9
4dec05cffd6e1ec25250d1f436aca26fa8d3360d
49801 F20101209_AAAHSX kobylinski_k_Page_012.pro
55f63638ee386379fe8bc9260ac1513f
2b589704ce5128b9f50be883c5ca1a1ac20ad4de
53525 F20101209_AAAHUA kobylinski_k_Page_048.pro
cf5b062c14155d7bd9440a59afa38970
4316f2c5076f823523c9014c04ac7ecc91817491
53195 F20101209_AAAHTM kobylinski_k_Page_028.pro
cffac38e30ec89637bb0ec5a0eabd524
495ee9a476e229f6d556a0406ca77d8c72354056
52841 F20101209_AAAHSY kobylinski_k_Page_013.pro
238b7212b1b5bb0051c6a3a43abc71ba
9bcaf11f1a81fd7111c0f4a002a6c969b00cc59e
49710 F20101209_AAAHUB kobylinski_k_Page_050.pro
2f2e5ff5ae628309ad3059a14157b2cb
e0a2b1296b04ae9b5085104b3f1e9ca7f2567fab
54950 F20101209_AAAHTN kobylinski_k_Page_029.pro
e2f22baa21a1d5fb5c66215745d586a3
6749e5539692497e35d863f85c35762769869385
56732 F20101209_AAAHUC kobylinski_k_Page_051.pro
abcb79e287bfbe32089645dcd70c6c2a
583e6d257b009846a9715d827dfa5099fee703b5
53382 F20101209_AAAHTO kobylinski_k_Page_030.pro
1e7c25fdfae5153d783eec3bc615c7a4
5280e1bf0477b96b2dbe04fbd246a84cb131a800
54791 F20101209_AAAHSZ kobylinski_k_Page_014.pro
c7ba056afb3afb4f96ee490930e52d38
2dc2e125422e6655a03b57072b965aec69ddcd4f
53405 F20101209_AAAHUD kobylinski_k_Page_052.pro
3718e78e3a5484b74f958e4d2cf0bf54
dda420a09666a9ba77d07510c32f5f554001664a
54081 F20101209_AAAHTP kobylinski_k_Page_032.pro
6be2a84953eb883165353b77a8d15d4f
78c956d62d8872258dfdaf899dcb8dad82967a37
51660 F20101209_AAAHUE kobylinski_k_Page_054.pro
f2bfae811f94e553462e869296def452
a789dbd021cd65d882e442a0590615817ab008c5
52922 F20101209_AAAHTQ kobylinski_k_Page_034.pro
65dccda2578af4994946a61b134ab10d
f1aeb9dc5af125e50d0e4a4a42383b5df4da3c61
2118 F20101209_AAAIAA kobylinski_k_Page_077.txt
d6a44647d020d25b5112f4f903f0eea4
bc76ae3f8b4f52bf9ae1fb5f0235a9bef6e0dfe7
50441 F20101209_AAAHUF kobylinski_k_Page_055.pro
7ab97b61e6c1250cded009a5728ad1f4
2fcaa0b17763122d56a07b77dc5e8da9415b03a7
50605 F20101209_AAAHTR kobylinski_k_Page_037.pro
fe1247593ead0ec15640a642786cef03
4b3086722bad5be873f5b15032fac760e4d613f3
2207 F20101209_AAAIAB kobylinski_k_Page_079.txt
1465cf827c8af8ec97008e52bbe04503
a97d213d47389514d743fa21aa21c2a73d791961
55092 F20101209_AAAHUG kobylinski_k_Page_056.pro
7454756e5a01d1d22af59aeeaa99d9ca
1f24707b209eaeb3b49e99a276ca5b0e071bf088
49804 F20101209_AAAHTS kobylinski_k_Page_039.pro
2c826e0f62102555be5413ac1ead5d7c
fa287f7e6d42397047859849dbd027f635e3d4fe
F20101209_AAAIAC kobylinski_k_Page_082.txt
598aae11d88f4527edb96c173783a053
4441780563d3b5f4277b6c7558107ee5d0c9960f
51559 F20101209_AAAHUH kobylinski_k_Page_057.pro
8fc8d5ce9ebf68f1a817064797ccd89b
b51c5882e4bdd9792875e97034b46b4aab06b5c2
52563 F20101209_AAAHTT kobylinski_k_Page_040.pro
3aad1ca7b2b8593886288c8ad25006e0
0683c0edfd12daaf8d6ea8506c69b80a5bf357a4
F20101209_AAAIAD kobylinski_k_Page_083.txt
8db57cdb405c9044108405eb8554c0c6
0167c245df1419c87d105b04aa0bf47d2009d643
54167 F20101209_AAAHUI kobylinski_k_Page_058.pro
0cc6aa931e3497d00d73872cf363a798
77ea5f8d5683731bfe0fc3187536a508ad0b9edc
51194 F20101209_AAAHTU kobylinski_k_Page_042.pro
a9ad14390725e9a7186898038b77808e
89d122e779be08f401a39db759b4f005216f671c
1789 F20101209_AAAIAE kobylinski_k_Page_085.txt
512ef4573160574387dfe29667ee356f
375f90eef168b4aa4a66fb5fd4df0b642e13cd10
54533 F20101209_AAAHUJ kobylinski_k_Page_060.pro
2981579c2dea40ce6ece0e19d844f686
189da7a49da84eb605c828e3e277082f961c813f
51373 F20101209_AAAHTV kobylinski_k_Page_043.pro
0ae1a08a246b74186ce18846072d4dca
798723fddaa8bf9434471423f1482c8d827de70a
1145 F20101209_AAAIAF kobylinski_k_Page_086.txt
4242a55a1a965e59e3e5bab4b8cea075
214058fdb702940906ce08e2a7c4e2663ba0694f
51859 F20101209_AAAHUK kobylinski_k_Page_061.pro
0a6d61ff2171f0ae6508ffa14c47e58e
012b8b7dbe7cdafceda475d58abeda2e3cc6f5ec
52398 F20101209_AAAHTW kobylinski_k_Page_044.pro
825fb735c1afbbc8cebd4cbe1a576b86
d0b1abd74a7fcceea4e82a59fcae01113699800f
31602 F20101209_AAAHUL kobylinski_k_Page_062.pro
0cd074214314a6ab5d1306e3888e7de6
a6e3a3866bcadddbc50648dffffe1da4230ad06b
53411 F20101209_AAAHTX kobylinski_k_Page_045.pro
40d330cb8c8315c0242d35ed72ef91ff
1a6acac9b45fb284f443f3cfe7fdd10ce939d66b
1818 F20101209_AAAIAG kobylinski_k_Page_087.txt
7d94c55b84b005a32ce5160299097e37
cdcb15fd042a9359cbba02377609c7278239ede2
16764 F20101209_AAAHUM kobylinski_k_Page_063.pro
0ab2516f41bb429c449a090d4283db79
ef9d45d3605b918c59e86ade54fa36217f143a49
54184 F20101209_AAAHTY kobylinski_k_Page_046.pro
be6ea33bf51e71ab84cf3bcd81078d02
6b5624998647d5e9340fd476bed176939fb6bd51
55036 F20101209_AAAHVA kobylinski_k_Page_079.pro
f69e3695233f15482305bb3c1910b401
1029e2167a96d1e3fbd49c3bead577e8052b4d8e
2054 F20101209_AAAIAH kobylinski_k_Page_088.txt
dc972c38cb12fb45e68ced2e6474cc34
89f1b6a4fc5cc78cecc21ed00f882dd59b9111f0
1955 F20101209_AAAHUN kobylinski_k_Page_064.pro
c95cceebeceab1f7b12ea2a23084efcd
23b2cdb96e273c8390722e25000835d532848a45
53609 F20101209_AAAHTZ kobylinski_k_Page_047.pro
26eedd262e7ce7fbb32ae17c1d40d6b1
958c39918362b4a392ecb3b9adb859947a9676cb
52422 F20101209_AAAHVB kobylinski_k_Page_080.pro
3f31f7cf20ce26d08c56a275fa7167f0
e6176c58345a58f26128ec58242491455558e84b
2035 F20101209_AAAIAI kobylinski_k_Page_089.txt
ac827cc1ce4d1ae4ab4a0d98e27022f3
b95b6b08069a80d5175ca5acd431581327c4526c
7008 F20101209_AAAHUO kobylinski_k_Page_065.pro
44fd25a7b9ea55e3991e45c0ca34a7a8
407f210001219711c1354474a94831662cec2ac5
51898 F20101209_AAAHVC kobylinski_k_Page_081.pro
0afacd02c75565a557299663fe92be91
3fd4c601aaeb6cdc1ef1151f825a9382af53c995
2011 F20101209_AAAIAJ kobylinski_k_Page_090.txt
d34a92fd94e5aef0fd14926e2d17bbb6
be85d3290bae6adc077acd8393d17f719cdc8b01
3168 F20101209_AAAHUP kobylinski_k_Page_066.pro
c3b3ef4c0ba02ae48b9a03c3c45e5a2c
77b33fbe859eea5a317a59892942b2ac09c54208
53873 F20101209_AAAHVD kobylinski_k_Page_082.pro
0757f2e8d7c9dc7978a016a49356c789
856c575cf8c81fae3c4ccde83871c83732e67995
2053 F20101209_AAAIAK kobylinski_k_Page_091.txt
529cbdb88d7afb36080bd5495304ed39
72dc55537d75ac6dfc87be405df9e72c4792d52e
5190 F20101209_AAAHUQ kobylinski_k_Page_067.pro
db12c974e638551fd1521154befce721
a114d587ea5d0fa4a25f380379342693a363f709
52897 F20101209_AAAHVE kobylinski_k_Page_083.pro
f677de0320390d49b565a031a8c5d037
084ec430bece2f4226fc7dcf85a6307523043e7d
342 F20101209_AAAIBA kobylinski_k_Page_110.txt
07677b92d7c502cb6ba36c2c685e53dc
de6dcea346a6e2992b2992208e1e2bd248da3446
2108 F20101209_AAAIAL kobylinski_k_Page_092.txt
ac8547ecb91640938a18df9b4e9e4757
e36ba76da9251a8f97c65013c4303dc1eff74504
1572 F20101209_AAAHUR kobylinski_k_Page_068.pro
96d210feac6fad2a5d219c0504b43b95
eb3da76e0b7175383a84b8cac9247dc9e13ded01
36033 F20101209_AAAHVF kobylinski_k_Page_084.pro
e9d4099105e0fb7d70ffc552d3c7fdf3
c08e303dfe9cb8668de837926d9faf290f306192
932 F20101209_AAAIBB kobylinski_k_Page_111.txt
ffe0e7b8004ddeccd8b2ccb2c1ddda38
8f03ffabe1c9fc8797a7a35e33db0c89656c8660
1956 F20101209_AAAIAM kobylinski_k_Page_093.txt
7880d7f1281f17aa9530751892661951
4ecdb8b6f53a02185ae4d2daba0f839bdff09a22
10641 F20101209_AAAHUS kobylinski_k_Page_069.pro
2cfcbb76ca85f1fe3cf52dd9d0e65791
2860d79c3b373527e1e229247618d85a151c8089
40735 F20101209_AAAHVG kobylinski_k_Page_085.pro
90c360750f03edcef2c282fc365edf32
b3057ac3571420829e180728ee4ad8a254d983e9
606 F20101209_AAAIBC kobylinski_k_Page_112.txt
2639f82f80db5d9a03a656813ef00cec
2bca60c1455d9985eac2bfb50ef47af26a161906
2073 F20101209_AAAIAN kobylinski_k_Page_095.txt
3930e00e200aa5e095900e110a65359d
bffe0c5eebd702968d0eed685eaf9c85cc7525c8
6670 F20101209_AAAHUT kobylinski_k_Page_070.pro
c26b336a9003c5f1fadd07cd1d0c9e86
84c2b0f69fdfdb8b28619f3f87da9b5be8f26361
29200 F20101209_AAAHVH kobylinski_k_Page_086.pro
a7d1df93727762a5eaa3526574aec7c7
d9c2bc11aa4d095ad89484cbf87560baad53c16c
848 F20101209_AAAIBD kobylinski_k_Page_113.txt
7a1cf00b6eb206241a87bab2e6a2a7cc
88e6f5b7e651c2d73be7435352ff643ac0053b0c
F20101209_AAAIAO kobylinski_k_Page_096.txt
ee7ad8516b1a4b26b3c106b8daf2572e
1fec3b0a26ae481f000cebce1fbe8169cd5ec3aa
53781 F20101209_AAAHUU kobylinski_k_Page_073.pro
8f27c3d0b84f085100cefd1f6e270b14
3b0bd7305d7fe3f6f0fe64228a251e69d1c596ba
46422 F20101209_AAAHVI kobylinski_k_Page_087.pro
edc2e8b0759e4e227df94310d583ee97
48035d7cc0a873d7aaada79db87b6ae08753ae25
2018 F20101209_AAAIBE kobylinski_k_Page_115.txt
0204cc1dce2ead69adb6e3db01d55ba6
75524a93c19ec236bfd97d56663fbe88a63cb987
F20101209_AAAIAP kobylinski_k_Page_097.txt
0317eae9cdfd4d025683a5ce38dc8b05
5797cf6ea1e543402aee0cfbe580cfebc385ea8d
54255 F20101209_AAAHUV kobylinski_k_Page_074.pro
b68c46a07d822b61bc8c6217b681cf45
aca34dc7d8b38a381579aac18d39fbceb0dd927d
49844 F20101209_AAAHVJ kobylinski_k_Page_088.pro
e194b47df4f8a6ed05ea3a7fc6e5db93
f549d2173faf73173780ea0bc7262ea81b2e51b2
1979 F20101209_AAAIBF kobylinski_k_Page_116.txt
7ef3c95bebdc69ad660946343e96c54f
27f9fd9cbc261cd81018edbdefeffe418670836a
2000 F20101209_AAAIAQ kobylinski_k_Page_098.txt
13064233549ce4744f29489bc1e47134
42cc2534f522e9e3e1d9439bac44e2fa4da05b7b
52992 F20101209_AAAHUW kobylinski_k_Page_075.pro
c90c3b73112aed886db7c19035b754dc
d7f5b667a2cbb9523e1f5e58301e467552781908
50748 F20101209_AAAHVK kobylinski_k_Page_089.pro
a7c1e12db61aa988e388ad4258ce2e76
24cbf0a442146e314b77295fe208ef94536459d5
1878 F20101209_AAAIBG kobylinski_k_Page_117.txt
ae7aa49b2c1adc68a6e2687186629ea1
229515d38a065492b909f4aba80c3759fb3b7877
1347 F20101209_AAAIAR kobylinski_k_Page_099.txt
2d86a87f6a4c8aab2eb441d60ff26a36
4c35405f030d1652d3e10dd2599a8ef5d3919124
52248 F20101209_AAAHUX kobylinski_k_Page_076.pro
400e80add440f7c6a1354f1087c685b6
815525b8f64b73357bf309b67091d19bc8bc67a1
51004 F20101209_AAAHVL kobylinski_k_Page_090.pro
fffc4f44f312468ed6b19edcdfc68542
cd5c7bb8c9d7bf9236eaf11dafcf5f3d3061a5ac
1721 F20101209_AAAIAS kobylinski_k_Page_100.txt
da5f5ed4d46adc023eed522c5a5a3625
ca346ba5f4c70008f149507b52e579d25701b8a6
53936 F20101209_AAAHUY kobylinski_k_Page_077.pro
cd08fbc005ea0b89fb10ebfce02d1ec8
4288bdcccb0c66c7a4ab37611bd6f94cc19c84eb
7408 F20101209_AAAHWA kobylinski_k_Page_110.pro
3b63f4fe353f6b0b787c8d76633ed10e
6986253c7c4fbcd9f02fd6d9d811a97603d121a1
52534 F20101209_AAAHVM kobylinski_k_Page_092.pro
c8178402c051d419b5a1ee58800c44b1
75065eec6627787e467ef1038ece8aaa314baf17
2176 F20101209_AAAIBH kobylinski_k_Page_118.txt
180c2d807bea1e54c8f5fa9497ea7b1e
d9211eaa36dd6594e63ef4a739cfbcad94002889
812 F20101209_AAAIAT kobylinski_k_Page_101.txt
ef4ea56488c37640aa1801bcad4b496b
6430029d944c68d76d0c41ea89e78d293ff65d57
50926 F20101209_AAAHUZ kobylinski_k_Page_078.pro
6a0c933b0877c08c544d1d2ab21b065d
a0c29eac00557401e867def8644ee057f2c0775d
20357 F20101209_AAAHWB kobylinski_k_Page_111.pro
360b337ee88afea2f8e09efe3620dfa4
02415d553e7d3a8a9b48d261b42eac3ef83caf10
49396 F20101209_AAAHVN kobylinski_k_Page_093.pro
ebfdf21adfa77441e7b918f640ec7aaf
dcf11fdb99417319cbd520ea4265419100083114
2004 F20101209_AAAIBI kobylinski_k_Page_119.txt
642aafa6b9328783b118ba432903e0d1
485b4ba6c1e11f9a85b3d91c762d18b7fa2e2e73
486 F20101209_AAAIAU kobylinski_k_Page_102.txt
253ab3a7df5d1a2a37e4c97e651580cd
c2ca8268a1c77592ba9837f07db881ea79d315ed
52126 F20101209_AAAHWC kobylinski_k_Page_114.pro
ddffac7f6c5db0b1d586f2a87bcdfe1e
1061ad1ed97b44d90308c6950113cee33b7bf6a6
50354 F20101209_AAAHVO kobylinski_k_Page_094.pro
3574e35a6a8a48d5e6268d8ca04774e8
a80f29d1bb4f3c7f234bb2283781e495cbe8f888
1983 F20101209_AAAIBJ kobylinski_k_Page_120.txt
5ec370f4cee40506e5cd44eb615df330
c398a14c1c27f44a5419d3aaba9bc3c5c0b86029
188 F20101209_AAAIAV kobylinski_k_Page_104.txt
455c2e677a5aeede986322b88b9a1add
eb5ff19c1872d81dfe8bfd9dd100817b4f05b927
50166 F20101209_AAAHWD kobylinski_k_Page_115.pro
cf0a1b2264be38b20bcc41fd1a174201
2782098f948ba0459d1c64b78755a30720b0dab2
51921 F20101209_AAAHVP kobylinski_k_Page_095.pro
00fc3e27b087914007ee3ac1f60b3f8b
f67a11fe78c2126d94aae23423ddbe6d34132452
1208 F20101209_AAAIBK kobylinski_k_Page_121.txt
48a0301f0d79e98401d78cabbd6f8deb
c7be6b5eb965e6aaeb3de7b830b454d2b6b022e7
1911 F20101209_AAAIAW kobylinski_k_Page_105.txt
f639a21ab3d466ae69f8ebb097ef8880
cd8b26fbe4bc3006d5ed79ec3d12de9c071210a2
49004 F20101209_AAAHWE kobylinski_k_Page_116.pro
7604d18387345b4db4ce55f59cbfdeeb
7a17ca93cb233c27b2c4323a71bc0301d2d94e77
52555 F20101209_AAAHVQ kobylinski_k_Page_096.pro
3e7e78e2fb7819a7151049793bb2658e
f31cd114e4c6e1ea800e43cbfeb556a5119150c6
980 F20101209_AAAICA kobylinski_k_Page_140.txt
252edfee9e67b2a409eb8aca36e575c3
ca28de465f46e3f6775523adbfbcadffee02bd93
1135 F20101209_AAAIBL kobylinski_k_Page_122.txt
03325cb4877ecf541a4fd5be88164b6e
5d96de39f66dc815c02cefb7f2ee97d20a035e08
F20101209_AAAIAX kobylinski_k_Page_106.txt
940b5bdebad366ad13bd995ff8b2a5d0
42cb36d8f3bce3650a6b0391860fca8455298786
47127 F20101209_AAAHWF kobylinski_k_Page_117.pro
ad6c63a7e450eb39b7e0b03a5b8d9c53
aec31e99a8eb7aa81952ab1677c109df2a5769f3
49617 F20101209_AAAHVR kobylinski_k_Page_098.pro
0e006a4e7ef370f4733c4ae9bfe44b06
335b7b146806ec3eb15ffdc4f104b646693b13b7
437 F20101209_AAAICB kobylinski_k_Page_141.txt
7e9e9020320d3ee05b94e3e4af80420f
7c05956c2f73ef3efd662fd09efb36d8d8da4928
588 F20101209_AAAIBM kobylinski_k_Page_123.txt
86320ae8b3e4fc18dd7ffab5c551ffe0
79556e0d5ea4688a26f006a0f26bc6c7f78d6abf
2070 F20101209_AAAIAY kobylinski_k_Page_107.txt
fe9f4cd8a3b5b36aebe07e978d5df934
2172c753e1e910ad1da80c03810b8b79b79c8f71
54358 F20101209_AAAHWG kobylinski_k_Page_118.pro
4392867fe955ee30b3b6c221618e7827
41e99feef0ce4d9a282845f97078db8c334cfbdb
33860 F20101209_AAAHVS kobylinski_k_Page_099.pro
b0c0eaee34ae00f801bf19233b8e7173
24fedcd0de60554d962116f9cc92a54b32033223
760 F20101209_AAAICC kobylinski_k_Page_142.txt
89753b915d7c9ae2df93218f9c8b2f32
2fda9fcced511c6373f3e7d68d175ddd5b906307
914 F20101209_AAAIBN kobylinski_k_Page_125.txt
f3092d93fb1e6a5cff39d11afed70779
6aa63325e1e1f08cf7e8c89154f27ac1f3a24cfe
1973 F20101209_AAAIAZ kobylinski_k_Page_109.txt
101b87b0f09821fda21ad56a02545413
4bbb57918960ddb78ab1800187d3a911e0518e50
50702 F20101209_AAAHWH kobylinski_k_Page_119.pro
9fd17836e4e9efdbef82d9ec1a55d838
e24c3619a7e4c057709fb4ea7affacc52ff21619
29309 F20101209_AAAHVT kobylinski_k_Page_100.pro
3964622cbfbd2ea1ab714623a38131f1
97ecad5035d6485321f3046201ec3f9b18088bc4
422 F20101209_AAAICD kobylinski_k_Page_143.txt
8f53aea80c9db3a8deffa8d8917310e4
e1fa3c847518d3be64f3f6752a87744b056dbc3d
596 F20101209_AAAIBO kobylinski_k_Page_127.txt
5d052cc0a0e85538516108e17f66e7ad
6bc6e038c8c4f6b9a25907e7b0e55dd2059888c6
50142 F20101209_AAAHWI kobylinski_k_Page_120.pro
72c2e5541f79bf858502d92fb8ab250f
dd01e501823714e58a8351c05178d15f102ce9ed
8295 F20101209_AAAHVU kobylinski_k_Page_102.pro
a09fa8dae6dd5396a8dc5e0f3b17f17b
183167d5e103c53d620a4c7bf61fe6b1e68bf5d6
350 F20101209_AAAICE kobylinski_k_Page_144.txt
15e88b6ad771998429915ed3ba850cc9
74cd0f572e1a953b84b97fb0a61b88b38d2c7977
2134 F20101209_AAAIBP kobylinski_k_Page_128.txt
12739f3f1d53f9940cde6cd00c797201
9359110ef92d3de797c23b9245eeb9ba808f87d2
29139 F20101209_AAAHWJ kobylinski_k_Page_121.pro
6bc399b18a2ceeb6e83bfc933749c14a
bc7b157c009859074ccd3d8a94a5f51f7bdbc816
3021 F20101209_AAAHVV kobylinski_k_Page_104.pro
132fbb56bd0401303c06288e40da31ca
fabfc113f58023136295f8442058bafb237708cc
466 F20101209_AAAICF kobylinski_k_Page_145.txt
4b388d92c214a64c93c0e0c69a4cc659
5cead61012343b9774d991d86612eceb5bcc5a4d
2242 F20101209_AAAIBQ kobylinski_k_Page_129.txt
e7817b509aac02f83d886efeb4a44cae
8b1ea0743641b05e93eb1132429d89884e23f8cb
23242 F20101209_AAAHWK kobylinski_k_Page_122.pro
7b6c8e64a9322d1536e0cad4a3b0e9ad
7354455be2a8530fac3e6bf72dba73dbc8aa7875
45354 F20101209_AAAHVW kobylinski_k_Page_105.pro
ba5733a75d04fea5613c6870f164c488
f3e41676cd2bb212af381edbbe3404f4ecc24613
1934 F20101209_AAAICG kobylinski_k_Page_146.txt
d716a6bfce7a855d1461ae8ca7d1efd4
f192cfb209f720bba371d00308ee9d1049370ccd
F20101209_AAAIBR kobylinski_k_Page_130.txt
d79da9929415412206c5cf32198373d6
fb6e69b3aac4ba04c85de2b36ea8aa87332f45d7
31677 F20101209_AAAHWL kobylinski_k_Page_124.pro
6a774e1f1158048608b924966f800368
5fadf132d3446e8a597bdbcc5bf58728f71afdd7
53269 F20101209_AAAHVX kobylinski_k_Page_106.pro
7c874df518daa1621d71456c101c4084
9a2838ec3cd9b1561e9785c6c4bceac045204368
2555 F20101209_AAAICH kobylinski_k_Page_148.txt
3377ba42c8ab8ce7df8cd2d18439d9b5
f0f8f2811c3e8001787fa7f136af6c8e4bfb6e65
F20101209_AAAIBS kobylinski_k_Page_131.txt
8ea32d10d5e7d48da7f3918506cb48a6
01b22b2455b7edb0716b37bef44134fab3b9db6b
7753 F20101209_AAAHXA kobylinski_k_Page_142.pro
d9ddcad593e1c17f63950768e46df2f2
97666272d9513f17224313df3ef1c69c04aa7c23
19981 F20101209_AAAHWM kobylinski_k_Page_126.pro
80d500cea3c0690abc3151b5fb37966a
ab9172d7fc5fc44dcc335165ffedc530cdd3ad08
49523 F20101209_AAAHVY kobylinski_k_Page_108.pro
f34d0dbc980365a901302e9cb482db77
90fc930c7063c0a4f79e5ba94a5a82a0fc518bad
2107 F20101209_AAAIBT kobylinski_k_Page_132.txt
7f190a1f00da80af0673ae2fa0e09502
39d60ad8f0928f720093412898f3e225b18462e5
7134 F20101209_AAAHXB kobylinski_k_Page_143.pro
6645daf13c52dfa71f64f89bb75509ea
09aa47e85677052b41193e2b5fb73fbe59bb08c3
13867 F20101209_AAAHWN kobylinski_k_Page_127.pro
13b6ba30c5dfebe0b065e7e492c1ba97
c2b9d826f5a819ea3032625d54a3b8c6b30e4ef7
49771 F20101209_AAAHVZ kobylinski_k_Page_109.pro
b12adebdacc15124e978051852e6937f
902ef7e0f8d54b6e756ea1a39535a41f6bcbb697
2598 F20101209_AAAICI kobylinski_k_Page_150.txt
c5ce2752134325a8941bcd33b5eae93a
cbcb59a4fcfc226f03c7734afb38b00b41e4935c
2168 F20101209_AAAIBU kobylinski_k_Page_133.txt
e7f1c95f6325df67b61fdc78da5031d3
b8f034fd04a0a4495c474cc3cb40f43d516e0a39
F20101209_AAAGUA kobylinski_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
d1a5b1b9ee578194082201cfa4b92130
a9575b4f95940763d9a83f5c62c5a8aefe5ebe30
6440 F20101209_AAAHXC kobylinski_k_Page_144.pro
8699ff8c60dc26b3fe94d859b891b457
3f5b5052021dcdab7a7aabee3dbd137ddcddf32d
34104 F20101209_AAAGTM kobylinski_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
89fa1d41a2eed273f294045248df3092
6e61bce7969745673b9a286516b64cc19033bf4c
51302 F20101209_AAAHWO kobylinski_k_Page_128.pro
23dee1e90cbae4add5a9550d10eabdb8
2fb34f171b1caf7a38cc504a82940acee9fb0d98
2746 F20101209_AAAICJ kobylinski_k_Page_152.txt
5a590d3d2bb5631904c22804a912b85a
4497bba334f5bbeabe2f6956c9bb55a56c43b5ae
1165 F20101209_AAAIBV kobylinski_k_Page_134.txt
86434c82b01613a289cf0825672369bb
2e73bb8a3fbbfb157330fb36b4ff683ea6cb1e8b
102285 F20101209_AAAGUB kobylinski_k_Page_055.jpg
4b344f92b591ab626aa7abf9710e80fa
cb90ba04de5ccb8fcb8081d205ddbb0e767ec24d
7798 F20101209_AAAHXD kobylinski_k_Page_145.pro
e0f301618002b81c370d94caa2d1ad37
c11080607f6198643d6b36ccb0899d27a9092951
F20101209_AAAGTN kobylinski_k_Page_160.tif
271c5c2562ba5e81ef65388aa414a03b
6f906b0b22e3a67962f7fc9a8f58455b99195486
56205 F20101209_AAAHWP kobylinski_k_Page_129.pro
98f4897b1bb947586500058de1e70c93
e8128a16b0a20c668ebea1bcadf04b3aa765f913
2492 F20101209_AAAICK kobylinski_k_Page_153.txt
07613d994cc4bcacb49e2f0b33c81d0e
ec70b8a9acc334127f65aa0156151d8f535de99f
4076 F20101209_AAAIBW kobylinski_k_Page_135.txt
b7dd9b40b51cc82d2aba05b5e8f19f71
8471e7455a7a84c210e0e3db6887687f94d02a7e
52942 F20101209_AAAGUC kobylinski_k_Page_021.pro
d81215109e48b661bb9ec92ac2993ad4
39cdef60fdb7d36ec27363f301d90853b339fa33
46571 F20101209_AAAHXE kobylinski_k_Page_146.pro
1cb1def6bf5596a779eb93b121373552
c76dace542abd2e396d98855775022a893f64469
2170 F20101209_AAAGTO kobylinski_k_Page_114.txt
3962b039d10fcb5559f593ddb1b8dd3e
12d908bdbed6d4a56e26a43acfb599525427c631
51116 F20101209_AAAHWQ kobylinski_k_Page_130.pro
12c9a33a678de5d6ac5269df9391f287
6f4d6c3d1d2986717395d0c3cd4d4369e3f51c17
31039 F20101209_AAAIDA kobylinski_k_Page_146.QC.jpg
9136b92dcec47e95c33d34609549f47a
b68be2100655adac998e1d24c298cd214fda7137
2797 F20101209_AAAICL kobylinski_k_Page_156.txt
65e9d4192b2d35248993ede5d9cf06ab
3e05da333ead8adafc0b4a2caa12497d893d993d
791 F20101209_AAAIBX kobylinski_k_Page_136.txt
e51d0ca8c6000643f66ace719a010365
472c55e72b5deafdaa296aeab88ed834c7a98105
114808 F20101209_AAAGUD kobylinski_k_Page_091.jp2
0bb8748c5362b2b4bbe72e64f7ebad31
2e7d4677269b7b260a6d67d85d4768f115bf1185
48601 F20101209_AAAHXF kobylinski_k_Page_147.pro
25af735727b0ea4248ac7e99c4f5d0c2
f056e37c9339c7a0e935220012fcb1a6f298a7d9
3378 F20101209_AAAGTP kobylinski_k_Page_126thm.jpg
1531d60bf6e8d53a219da4e79fbc14a9
2e58f77757a4bff18b2ee22f37295feeaac22d9b
52068 F20101209_AAAHWR kobylinski_k_Page_131.pro
e5a953e34c71c2fd0c3483b263c86fbb
b06df5c77a1a54ed2a9c9385b51cfdffe52d514e
13273 F20101209_AAAIDB kobylinski_k_Page_126.QC.jpg
b5bdecd83f38c005f806fe82d859e216
0907b1866223dae788b2f3bdf744deef3dc55b92
2770 F20101209_AAAICM kobylinski_k_Page_157.txt
649d0077db974fb5d43f32ed5283617a
e13d3f3fe7eca1afb80eaadf33c4b2f39e5a809f
755 F20101209_AAAIBY kobylinski_k_Page_137.txt
191339bf0e38ffb9c697b670a3c5e673
01ff0fbaf0ede52dd57baab43af8eb5fd1c631e7
12932 F20101209_AAAGUE kobylinski_k_Page_112.pro
e209a844a65c1aa2a57aa6bdc2c7caa1
b7b6b0e62101252341e79351e084c25ad0d519ed
63422 F20101209_AAAHXG kobylinski_k_Page_148.pro
d649bd8086f0114c1225aa7f5e6375b3
fd278358350fdc0961886ef7acb8a94ae3eb0e01
52950 F20101209_AAAGTQ kobylinski_k_Page_038.pro
a2727c5997613ffd24b8eb2ea0d26bb8
edeaa3f6397860b09804d543d3cc901b14fbc3c9
52242 F20101209_AAAHWS kobylinski_k_Page_132.pro
aaa8be396e080b7c2ee10d33c785d01f
aa84afba715ea46b8dc1b8fedfedeb2b477188b9
5158 F20101209_AAAIDC kobylinski_k_Page_104thm.jpg
44827a1e2e01b5ee18eed6bce1a88768
2878d65d341c9f0eef0a2340b5d9c7ad4f957f56
2739 F20101209_AAAICN kobylinski_k_Page_159.txt
7a6c0610218a3f84ffb4ae3a5befa5c8
a93ef673be7c27e54ece09b930a1e44956acb337
F20101209_AAAIBZ kobylinski_k_Page_138.txt
a109bbf1c8ef598c47ac99d2544f1f7c
93cd4f2e97c3ba6de1afa7700067f0054a2b9cc3
64640 F20101209_AAAHXH kobylinski_k_Page_150.pro
36cdf03ca19ba98428a30b76e0b6ee76
81c542fbf5e5027edd4564e054f2bcda18b22aaf
F20101209_AAAGTR kobylinski_k_Page_078.tif
bebe5571b97f6bd87c0c8e3d5750cb05
af9f24c16841b6001ad0a3ea874426b7c5a4ebe4
27995 F20101209_AAAHWT kobylinski_k_Page_134.pro
00c19c3e9db07ab8bb74f0d5245b8bb5
9326aaa26239216be559f769d506297da8756dbc
63397 F20101209_AAAHAA kobylinski_k_Page_124.jp2
7c0f5efd6f0f0bfbb7f45923ee6a895f
ef5a5cb20e94ba9fcd20f8b8e61b7433f483406b
F20101209_AAAGUF kobylinski_k_Page_153.tif
1a2abb648fcb8813a50bf494af9a194e
969136ae7377f2370cd516f1faa820865b179e80



PAGE 1

MOSQUITO AND SENTINEL CHICKEN INTERACTIONS WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL CAGE DESIGN AND FLIGHT ACTIVITY OF MOSQUITOES IN OR ANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 2005-2006 By KEVIN C. KOBYLINSKI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Kevin C. Kobylinski

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Robyn Raban for her countless effort s, suggestions, and he lp. I thank Sean McCann, Erin Vrzal, Aissa Doumboya, Melissa Doyle, Aaron Lloyd, Joyce Urban, Haze Brown, and David Hoel for their support, help, and sugge stions concerning rearing and experiments in Gainesville. I thank Gregg Ross, Amador Rodr iguez, Columbus Holland, Terry Hughes, Sue Durand, Armond Cross, and the Orange County Mosquito Control Division Staff for their support, help, and suggestions co ncerning field research. I tha nk Dr. Don Shroyer, Dr. Jerry Hogsette, Dr. Phil Koehler, Frank Wessels, Les lie Rios, and the Urban Entomology Laboratory for their thoughtful suggestions and support. I thank Dr. Cynthia Lord, Dr. Ramon Littell, Robyn Raban, and Alejandro Arevalo for their help with statistical analys is. I thank Dr. Sandra Allan and Dr. Dan Kline for their support, help, suggestions, and use of laboratory supplies and space for work done in Gainesville. I thank Dr. Cynthia Rutledge-Connelly, Dr. Thomas Breaud, Dr. Jon Day, Dr. Sandra Allan, and Dr. Da n Kline for all their support, help, and suggestions during the experiments and writing process. This res earch was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health Grant AI042164, M odeling and Empirical Studies of Arboviruses in Florida. This research was funded in pa rt by the Mosquito Control Division, Health and Family Services Department, Orange County Florida.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................. ...4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Arboviruses in Florida......................................................................................................... ...13 St. Louis Encephalitis Virus............................................................................................14 West Nile Virus...............................................................................................................15 Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus..................................................................................16 Western Equine Encephalitis Vi rus: Highlands J Virus.................................................17 Culex nigripalpus and Virus Transmission in Florida............................................................18 St. Louis Encephalitis Virus............................................................................................18 West Nile Virus...............................................................................................................19 Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus..................................................................................20 Other Potential Vectors of Arboviruses in Florida.................................................................20 Potential Vectors of St. Louis Encephalitis Virus...........................................................21 Potential Vectors of West Nile virus...............................................................................22 Potential Vectors of Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus.................................................23 Surveillance of Arboviruses...................................................................................................25 Human Surveillance............................................................................................................. ...26 Weather Patterns............................................................................................................... ......28 Vector Surveillance............................................................................................................ ....28 Monitoring of Mosquito Abundance...............................................................................29 Parity Analysis................................................................................................................ .30 Minimum Infection Rates in Mosquitoes........................................................................30 Non-Human Vertebrate Surveillance.....................................................................................32 Live, Wild Vertebrate Surveillance.................................................................................32 Wild bird surveillance..............................................................................................33 Wild mammal surveillance.......................................................................................34 Wild reptile surveillance..........................................................................................36 Dead, Wild Bird Surveillance..........................................................................................36 Domestic Animal Surveillance........................................................................................38

PAGE 5

5 Sentinel Animal Surveillance..........................................................................................41 Sentinel mammals....................................................................................................42 Sentinel birds............................................................................................................42 2 CAGE ESCAPE TRIALS.......................................................................................................50 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........50 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .51 Mosquito Rearing............................................................................................................52 Marking........................................................................................................................ ...53 Chickens....................................................................................................................... ...53 Experimental Cage Design..............................................................................................54 Aspirator...................................................................................................................... ....55 Escape Rates................................................................................................................... .56 Entry Rates.................................................................................................................... ..57 Results........................................................................................................................ .............57 Escape Trial Results........................................................................................................57 Cage Entry Results..........................................................................................................58 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........59 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........62 3 SENTINEL CHICKEN DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR..............................................................72 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........72 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .73 Mosquito Rearing............................................................................................................73 Mark-Release-Recapture Studies....................................................................................75 Chickens....................................................................................................................... ...76 Host Defensive Behavior.................................................................................................76 Effect of Host Defensive Behavior..................................................................................77 Results........................................................................................................................ .............78 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........79 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........84 4 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SITES: ARBOVIRUSES/VECTORS/HOSTS........................88 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........88 Site Descriptions.............................................................................................................. .......89 Tibet-Butler Preserve.......................................................................................................89 Moss Park...................................................................................................................... ..91 Arboviruses.................................................................................................................... .........92 Tibet-Butler Preserve.......................................................................................................92 Moss Park...................................................................................................................... ..93 Vectors of Arboviruses......................................................................................................... ..94 Avian Hosts of Arboviruses....................................................................................................95 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........98

PAGE 6

6 5 EXPERIMENTAL ARBOVIRAL SURVEI LLANCE IN ORANGE COUNTY, FL.........105 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........105 Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................105 Sentinel Chickens..........................................................................................................105 Mosquitoes....................................................................................................................107 Results........................................................................................................................ ...........108 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ........108 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .......110 6 CAGE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................114 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........114 Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................115 Results........................................................................................................................ ...........116 Tibet-Butler Preserve.....................................................................................................116 Moss Park......................................................................................................................117 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ........118 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......121 7 ROTATOR STUDIES..........................................................................................................128 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........128 Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................129 Results........................................................................................................................ ...........130 Tibet-Butler Preserve.....................................................................................................130 Moss Park......................................................................................................................131 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ........132 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......134 8 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................146 REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................... .148 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................166

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Larval feeding regimen..................................................................................................... ...63 3-1 Effect of host defensiv e behavior on recovery, blood feeding success, and location recovered...................................................................................................................... ........85 3-2 Effect of Cx. nigripalpus density on recovery, blood feeding success, and location recovered when one or four chickens were present.............................................................85 3-3 Behaviors displayed by chickens in response to mosquitoes...............................................86 3-4 Defensive behaviors displayed by chickens in the presence of mosquitoes with commentary..................................................................................................................... .....87 4-1 Seroconversions for EEEV at s ites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004......................100 4-2 Seroconversions for SLEV at si tes operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004......................100 4-3 Seroconversions for WNV at si tes operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004.......................101 5-1 Rain (mm).................................................................................................................. ........111 5-2 Relative humidity (%)...................................................................................................... ..111 5-3 Temperature (C)........................................................................................................... .....111 5-4 Wind speed (km/h).......................................................................................................... ...112 5-5 Barometric pressure (mm-Hg)...........................................................................................112 6-1 Mosquitoes captured in experimental cage at TBP............................................................122 6-2 Other Diptera captured in experimental cage at TBP........................................................122 6-3 Mosquitoes captured in experimental cage at MP..............................................................123 6-4 Other Diptera captured in experimental cage at MP..........................................................123 6-5 Mean number of mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at TBP.........................124 6-6 Percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at TBP...................124 6-7 Mean number of blood-fed and non bloodfed mosquitoes by location at TBP................125 6-8 Mean number of mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at MP..........................126

PAGE 8

8 6-9 Percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caugh t in the exit trap and cage at MP..........................126 6-10 Mean number of blood-fed and non bloodfed mosquitoes by location at MP..................127 7-1 Rotator tim e schedule...................................................................................................... ...135 7-2 Tibet-Butler Preserve rotator catch totals 11/7/05 to 7/4/06..............................................136 7-3 Moss Park rotator catch totals 11/8/05 to 7/5/06................................................................137

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Original sentinel chicken cage used by OCMCD................................................................63 2-2 Experimental sentinel ch icken cage used for research.........................................................64 2-3 Line drawing of experimental cage......................................................................................65 2-4 Line drawing of e xperimental inner cage.............................................................................66 2-5 Sentinel chicken cage exit trap............................................................................................ .67 2-6 Assembled aspirator........................................................................................................ .....68 2-7 Night escape trials........................................................................................................ ........69 2-8 Day escape trials.......................................................................................................... .........70 2-9 Percent mosquitoes recovered from experimental cage and exit trap..................................71 4-1 Orange County water bodies w ith sentinel sites, TBP and MP.........................................102 4-2 Aerial view of TBP......................................................................................................... ...103 4-3 Aerial view of MP.......................................................................................................... ....104 5-1 Total number of Culex nigripalpus captured in light traps in Orange County by month..113 7-1 Anopheles crucians captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP............................................138 7-2 Coquillettidia perturbans captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP...................................139 7-3 Culex erraticus captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP...................................................140 7-4 Culex nigripalpus captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP...............................................141 7-5 Culex quinquefasciatus captured by rotator trap at TBP....................................................142 7-6 Culiseta melanura captured by rotator trap at TBP...........................................................143 7-7 Mansonia titillans captured by rotator trap at TBP............................................................144 7-8 All species captured by ro tator trap at TBP and MP..........................................................145

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MOSQUITO AND SENTINEL CHICKEN INTERACTIONS WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL CAGE DESIGN AND FLIGHT ACTIVITY OF MOSQUITOES IN OR ANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 2005-2006 By Kevin C. Kobylinski December 2006 Chair: Cynthia Roxanne Rutledge-Connelly Major Department: Entomology and Nematology An experimental cage was created to attract and contain mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are funneled into the cage through a baffle. Mosquitoes are contained in the cage, in the exit trap, or they escape through the baffle slit. Trials we re conducted in Gainesville, FL from May 26 through July 25, 2005 to determine mosquito escape rates from the experimental cage. Five colony-raised mosquito species were used: Culex nigripalpus Theobald, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, Aedes albopictus (Skuse), and Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus). Mosquito escape rates from the cage with the baffl e slit open and two restra ined chickens inside the cage were Cx. nigripalpus 77.7 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 47.4 10.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 65.8 12.1%, Ae. albopictus 58.7 4.6%, and Ae. aegypti 57.0 5.5%. Chickens display a variety of defensive behavi ors in response to host seeking mosquitoes. From July 26 through August 13, 2005, in Gainesvill e, Florida, adult chic kens were exposed to known densities of mosquitoes. A restrained chic ken and an unrestrained chicken were housed in two separate experimental cages and exposed to 300 Cx. nigripalpus or 300 Ae. albopictus

PAGE 11

11 Blood-feeding success of Ae. albopictus varied significantly between the unrestrained chicken (6.1%) trials and the restrained chic ken (22.2%) trials (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) Groups of four chickens were exposed in the experimental cage once a week at two field sites, Tibet-Butler Preserve and Moss Park, in Orange County, FL from October 12, 2005 to July 5, 2006. All mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage the morning after exposure, collected from the exit trap, identified to species, pooled by spec ies, and frozen at -80 C. Twelve species of mosquitoes were captured in the experimental cage at Tibet-Butler Preserve and seven species at Moss Park. Coquillettida perturbans (Walker), Cx. nigripalpus and Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab) were frequently captured in the experimental cage at both sites. Mansonia titillans (Walker) was captured frequently at Tibet-Butler Preserve. Mos quitoes were more frequently captured in the cage than in the exit trap at Ti bet-Butler Preserve (T-test, t = 14.86, P < 0.0001) and Moss Park (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0052). Coquillettidia perturbans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.39, P = 0.0085), Cx. erraticus (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 1.86, P = 0.0317), and Ma. titillans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048) were more likely to fly upward and become cap tured in the exit trap when blood-fed. A rotator trap, baited with incandescent light and CO2, was operated on a ll nights that experimental chickens were exposed from November 7, 2005 through July 5, 2006 to determine periods of mosquito flight activity at night. Coquillettida perturbans (ANOVA, F = 4.74, P < 0.0001) and Cx. erraticus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 25.2, P = 0.0007) exhibited crepuscular host-seeking patterns. Anopheles crucians Wiedemann (ANOVA, F = 4.14, P = 0.0003), Cx. nigripalpus (ANOVA, F=13.96, P < 0.0001), Cx. quinquefasciatus (KruskalWallis, Chi-square = 22.4, P = 0.0022), and Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) (ANOVA, F = 6.55, P < 0.0001) exhibited nocturna l host-seeking patterns.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sentinel chickens are maintained at field sites in Orange County for the detection of arboviruses. Blood samples are taken weekly from sentinel chickens and analyzed for arboviral antibodies. Exit traps were attached to the coun ty sentinel chicken cages to assess the species diversity and abundance of mosquitoes th at were attracted to the chickens. An experimental cage, similar in design to the sentinel chicken cages used by Orange County Mosquito Control Division (OCMCD), was created to draw mosquitoes into the cage and contain the mosquitoes. Mosquitoes that appr oach the sentinel chic kens are funneled upward into the cage by a baffle that narrows to an entry slit. The mosquitoes are contained in the cage or fly upward into the exit trap. Pre-field trials were conducte d to determine the percent of mosquitoes that could be recove red within the experimental cage and the percent of mosquitoes that could escape from the experimental cage. Vertebrates display a variety of defensiv e behaviors in response to host seeking mosquitoes (Anderson and Brust 1995, Cully et al. 1991, Waage and Nondo 1982, Webber and Edman 1972). Adult chicken defensive behavior and its influence on mosquito recovery rates and mosquito blood-feeding success was assessed. Predetermined numbers of mosquitoes were released into two cages with one restrained in one cage, and one unrestrained chicken in the other cage. The effect of mosquito density and chicken defensive behavior on mosquito recovery rates and mosquito blood-feeding su ccess was assessed. Predetermined numbers of mosquitoes were released into two cages with one unrestrained chicken in one cage, and four unrestrained chickens in the othe r cage. The location in the cage that mosquitoes were recovered from and their blood-fed status was recorded. The effect of chicken defensive behavior on

PAGE 13

13 mosquito blood-feeding success and location of mosquito recovery in the experimental cage was assessed. Experimental chickens were placed at two fi eld sites in Orange County from October 2005 to July 2006 for the detection of arbovirus an tibodies. Mosquitoes were collected in the experimental cage in attempt to determine which mosquitoes vectored arboviruses to sentinel chickens in Orange County, FL. The diversity and abundance of mosquito species attracted to chickens was documented. The location of mosqu ito recovery within the experimental cage was documented to determine how repres entative the exit trap collections are of the mosquitoes that approach sentinel chickens. Blood-feeding succ ess was observed to determine how often bloodfed mosquitoes fly upward into the exit trap. The host-seeking times of nocturnally active mosquitoes differ among species. Knowledge of the host-seeking times of nocturnally active mo squitoes is important to determine the most appropriate time to conduct night-time adulticide spraying. A rotator trap was operated at the field sites to determine periods of peak host-s eeking activity. Arboviruses in Florida The diverse habitats found in Florida support a wide range of vertebrate hosts, mosquito vectors, and arboviruses. Humans find the Florida climate attrac tive and millions of susceptible, elderly humans have made Florida their home (B ond et al. 1963). The elderly tend to suffer greater complications to arboviruses that occur in Florida such as St. Louis encephalitis (family Flaviviridae genus Flavivirus SLEV) and West Nile virus (family Flaviviridae genus Flavivirus WNV) (Bond et al. 1963, Petersen and Ma rfin 2002). As the population of northcentral Florida (greater Orlando area) continues to grow, human habitation pushes closer to swamp foci, increasing the potenti al of human infection with Ea stern equine encephalitis virus (family Togaviridae genus Alphavirus EEEV) (Edman et al. 1972b, Morris 1992).

PAGE 14

14 St. Louis Encephalitis Virus St. Louis encephalitis virus was first documented in Florida from a thirty year-old man in Miami in 1952 (Sanders et al. 1953). Since then there have been five major epidemics of SLEV in three distinct regions of Florida (Bond 1969, Nelson et al. 1983, Day and Stark 2000). The outbreaks of 1959, 1961, and 1962 were centered in th e Tampa Bay Area of Florida (Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota counties) (Bond 1969). There were 68 clinical human cases of SLEV and five deaths in 1959, 25 cases and seven deaths in 1961, and 231 cases and 43 deaths in 1962 (CDC 2006a, Bond 1969). As with most outbreaks of SLEV, all deaths were persons over the age of 45 years (Bond 1969). The primary epidemic vector during these outbreaks and the 1977 and 1990 outbreaks in peninsular Florida, was Culex nigripalpus Theobald (Dow et al. 1964, Shroyer 1991). In di rect response to the ou tbreak of SLEV in 1962 the Encephalitis Research Center (ERC) of the Florida State Board of Health in Tampa was established (Bond 1969). From 1963 to 1976, only two human cases of S LEV were reported in Florida and thus surveillance and research interests in SLEV declined (Nel son et al. 1983). The outbreak of SLEV in 1977 lacked an urban focus and covere d a broad region (20 counties) of central and south Florida (Nelson et al. 1983). This outbreak differed from the previous outbreaks in Tampa Bay because there was a high attack rate of SLEV in males between 15 and 24 years of age, most likely due to outdoor occupations (Nelson et al. 1983). Th ere were 110 presumptive and confirmed human cases of SLEV in Florida in 1977 with 11 cases from Orange County (Nelson et al. 1983). Interest in surv eillance of arboviruses was heighten ed after this outbreak and the establishment of the Florida Sentinel Chicke n Surveillance Program began in 1978 (Day 1989). Focal outbreaks and sporadic cases of SLEV in humans occurred from 1979 to 1984 (CDC 2006a). In 1990, there was an epid emic of SLEV in humans that spanned 28 counties in central

PAGE 15

15 and south Florida with 226 clinical human cases and 11 deaths. In Orange County there were 28 human cases of SLEV (Day and Stark 2000). W ith the exception of two sporadic cases in 1969, (FDOH 2006a) the 1977 and 1990 outbreaks were the on ly instances of reported human infection of SLEV in Orange County. Focal and sporadic cases of SLEV in humans occurred from 1991 to 2002 throughout Florida (CDC 2006a). Human infection with SLEV is typically a re latively mild illness characterized by fever and headache, followed by complete recovery (Hayes 2000). Persons over the age of 45 may experience severe central nervous system involve ment of meningitis or encephalitis leading to death (Bond 1969, Hayes 2000). Inapparent (asymp tomatic) human SLEV infection rates vary from 0.2 to 5.2% (Hayes 2000). Human SLEV inf ections in Florida t ypically occur between August and December (Bond 1969, Nelson et al. 1983). West Nile Virus West Nile virus was first documented in Fl orida in 2001 (Blackmore et al. 2003). In 2001 WNV activity was dispersed throughout the entire state with 12 human cases ranging from the panhandle to the Keys (Blackmore et al. 2003). In 2002 WNV activity was dispersed throughout the entire state with 35 human cases, two deaths and three additional cases attributed to blood transfusions and organ transplants. The only human case of WNV infection in Orange County occurred in 2002 with an onset date of August 12. In 2003 WNV activity was dispersed throughout the state with a hea vy concentration of cases (61 cases in 10 counties) in the northwest portion of the panhandl e. There were 93 human cases of WNV and six deaths in 2003. In 2004 there were 39 human cases of WNV, two deaths and three additional cases that were suspected to have been acquired out of st ate. In 2005 there were 21 human WNV cases and one death. As of July, 2006, no human infections of WNV have been reported in Florida for 2006 (FDOH 2006b).

PAGE 16

16 During the initial two years of WNV activity there were human cases throughout Florida with no discernable pattern of transmission or centralized outbreak foci. In 2003 there were human cases throughout Florida bu t 66% (61/93) of human cases were from the northwest region of the Florida Panhandle. In 2004 and 2005 ther e were urban foci in Dade and Broward Counties (24 of 39 human cases) and in Pinellas County (18 of 21 human cases), respectively (FDOH 2006b). In humans, WNV is capable of causing either a febrile illness known as West Nile fever (Watson et al. 2004b) or a neuroinvasive diseas e such as meningitis, encephalitis, or acute flaccid paralysis leading to deat h (Petersen and Marfin 2002). Sy mptoms of West Nile fever include fever, malaise, anorexia, nausea, vom iting, eye pain, headache, myalgia, rash, and lymphadenopathy (Petersen and Marfin 2002) with symptoms lasting 3 to 6 days or sometimes longer (Watson et al. 2004b). Symptoms of neur oinvasive WNV disease in clude fever, muscle weakness, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and changes in mental status (Petersen and Marfin 2002). A seroprevalence study in New York City during 1999 determined that approximately 20% of WNV infected persons developed febrile illness and less than 1% developed neuroinvasive disease (Mostashari et al. 2001). Mostas hari et al. (2001) estimated that for every one meningoencephalitis cas e there were 140 symptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases. In a large scale screening of blood donations Busch et al. (2006) found the incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease to in apparent infection in humans to be 1 in 256. Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Transmission of Eastern equine encephalitis virus has only occurred in focal or sporadic outbreaks in Florida (Bigler et al. 1976, Day and Stark 1996b, Mo rris 1992). Most cases of EEEV in humans are confined to the panhandle a nd north-central Florida (Day and Stark 1996b). The first documented human case of EEEV in Fl orida was in 1952, but th ere were unconfirmed

PAGE 17

17 reports of human cases in Florida prior to 1952 (Big ler et al. 1976). To date there have been 68 reported human cases of EEEV in Florida (CDC 2006a). Four human cases of EEEV have occurred in Orange County with one case in 1973, 1990, 1995, and 2003 (FDOH 2006a). Eastern equine encephalitis vi rus is a severely debilitati ng disease, causing death in approximately 50 to 90% of symptomatic human vi ctims, with most deat hs being adults (Scott and Weaver 1989, Villari et al. 1995). Symptoms of encephalitic EEEV in fection are high fever (39 to 41C), irritability, restlessness, drowsine ss, muscle tremors, neck rigidity, anorexia, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, cyanosis, convulsion s, and coma (Morris 1992). Villari et al. (1995) found adults that survive encephalitic EE EV infection often ha ve full recovery but children less than fifteen ofte n suffer lifelong debilitations cau sed by persistent and severe neurologic disease. Human cases can occur th roughout the year in Florida but generally occur between May and August (Bigler et al. 1976). Most human cases of EEEV are rural in distribution and generally associ ated with wooded areas adjacent to swamps and marshes (Morris 1992). Western Equine Encephalitis Virus: Highlands J Virus Western equine encephalitis virus (family Togaviridae genus Alphavirus WEEV) has been isolated from Culiseta melanura (Coquillett), birds, and horses in Florida (Bigler et al. 1976, Henderson et al. 1962, Karabatsos et al. 1988). It was later dete rmined that all isolates of WEEV in the Eastern United States were Highlands J (HJ) virus, an antigenically distinct virus that is part of the WEEV complex (Calisher et al. 1980, Karabatsos et al. 1988). Highlands J virus has no known public or veterinary health im portance (Karabatsos et al. 1988). The primary vector of HJ virus in the eastern United States is Cs. melanura (Karabatsos et al. 1988, Morris 1988). Highlands J virus can complicate avian serosu rvey results as it cros s reacts with EEEV in the Hemaggluttination Inhibition (HI) test. It was not until 2004 that HJ was included in the

PAGE 18

18 laboratory testing of EEEV positive sentinel chickens in Florida. Plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) are now used to differentiate between HJ and EEEV (L. M. Stark, personal communication). Culex nigripalpus and Virus Transmission in Florida St. Louis Encephalitis Virus Culex nigripalpus is the most abundant Culex ( Culex ) species in peninsular Florida (Edman 1974). An outbreak of SLEV in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida in 1962 resulted in 22 of 23 isolations of SLEV from wild Cx. nigripalpus establishing this species as the primary epidemic vector of SLEV in south Florida (D ow et al. 1964). Provos t (1969) observed that Cx. nigripalpus activity was directly influenced by humid ity with nights of 90% humidity or greater triggering the greatest amount of flight activity. He hypothesized that rainless periods during the Cx. nigripalpus breeding season punctuated by intermittent rainfall leads to SLEV transmission (Provost 1969). Day and Curtis (1999) defined four phases of SLEV transmission in subtropical Florida: maintenance, amplification, early season transmi ssion, and late season transmission phases. The maintenance phase occurs from December throug h March and SLEV transmission is maintained at low levels between avian hosts and mosquitoes The amplification phase occurs from April through June and coincides with the avian nes ting season. Early season transmission of SLEV occurs from July through September at which time the first human cas es of SLEV may be reported. Late season transmission of SLEV occu rs from October through December when more human cases of SLEV may be re ported. St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission to humans typically ceases by the end of December (Day and Curtis 1999). Winter and springtime (maintenance and amplification phases) drought restricts Cx. nigripalpus to wooded hammocks where many avian spec ies nest (Day 2001). This brings Cx.

PAGE 19

19 nigripalpus into contact with adult a nd nestling birds (Day 2001). Culex nigripalpus had higher blood feeding success on nestling than adult cicon iiform birds most likely due to the lack of plumage on nestling birds (Kale et al. 1972). Ne stling birds have been shown to circulate a higher viremia of SLEV for a longer duration than adult bird s and display fewer defensive behaviors making them more likely to infect mo squitoes (Scott et al. 1988, Scott et al. 1990a). Culex nigripalpus shifts host preference from avian hosts during January through May to mammalian hosts during June through November or December (Edman 1974, Edman and Taylor 1968). The mammalian feeding preference shift by Cx. nigripalpus coincides with the occurrence of epidemic activity of SLEV in humans during earl y and late season transmission (Day and Curtis 1999, Edman 1974). The Cx. nigripalpus host preference sh ift from avian to mammal is directly linked with rainfall (Edman 1974). Day and Curtis (1989) showed that Cx. nigripalpus blood-feeding and oviposition (Day et al. 1990) behavior was regulated by heavy rainfa ll (>30mm). When heavy rainfalls occur every 10 to 14 days, parous Cx. nigripalpus were forced to delay ovipos ition. This allowed time for the extrinsic incubation of SLEV virus resulting in infected salivary glands of the mosquito. The next heavy rainfall triggered the infective Cx. nigripalpus to oviposit and then blood feed, potentially infecting further hosts (Day et al 1990). This amplifying cycle continues until minimum infection rates of SLEV in Cx. nigripalpus are >1:1000 at whic h point the likelihood of incidental human infection can reach epidemic levels (Day and Stark 2000). Once the drought ends, the repeated rainfall raises humidity levels and Cx. nigripalpus disperse from the hammocks furthering the potential of SLEV tr ansmission to humans (Shaman et al. 2002). West Nile Virus Culex nigripalpus has been incriminated in transm ission of WNV in Florida and was suspected of being the primary epidemic vector in 2001 (Rutledge et al. 2003). Culex

PAGE 20

20 nigripalpus was capable of transmitting WNV in the la boratory (Turell et al. 2005). Two WNV infected pools of Cx. nigripalpus were found in Jefferson Count y, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). The same mechanisms that make Cx. nigripalpus an efficient vector of SLEV were thought to make it an efficient v ector of WNV (Shaman et al. 2005). Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Culex nigripalpus was suggested as a possible bridge vector for EEEV in Florida by Nayar (1982). Eastern equine en cephalitis virus was isolat ed from sixteen pools of Cx. nigripalpus in the Tampa Bay area from 1962 to 1967 (Taylor et al. 1969) and from 94 pools from 1962 to 1970 (Wellings et al. 1972). Three of ten pools of Cx. nigripalpus were positive for EEEV during a focal outbreak of EEEV in emus in Vo lusia County, Florida in 1994 (Day and Stark 1996a). Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus has also been isolated from Cx. nigripalpus in Trinidad (Downs et al. 1959). Sudia and Chamberlain (1964) found Cx. nigripalpus to be a poor vector of EEEV under laboratory conditions. Culex nigripalpus is often collected from swamp foci with known EEEV activity in Orange County (OCM CD data). The abundance of Cx. nigripalpus in swamp habitat, generalis t feeding habits (Edman 1974) and rainfall mediated hostfeeding patterns (Day and Curtis 1989) increase its pot ential as a vector of EEEV in Florida. Other Potential Vectors of Arboviruses in Florida Chamberlain (1958) used five criteria for the incrimination of potential vectors of arboviruses which were simplified and restated by Vaidyanathan et al. (1997): history of frequent virus isolation; fli ght range overlapping host habita t; host seeking and blood feeding coinciding with disease incidence; varied host ch oice; and laboratory demonstration of vector competence. Many of the mosquito species in Fl orida suspected as potential arbovirus vectors have not fulfilled all five of the requirements to be incriminated as vectors of arboviruses.

PAGE 21

21 Potential Vectors of St. Louis Encephalitis Virus Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Say and Culex salinarius Coquillett are the second most abundant species of Culex ( Culex ) in Florida (Edman 1974). Both reach peak abundance in late winter and spring in south Florida (OMeara and Evans 1983, Provost 1969). Culex quinquefasciatus is a generalist feeder that frequently feeds on man and domestic animals such as cats, dogs, and chickens (Edman 1974). Culex quinquefasciatus was a competent vector of SLEV in the laboratory (Chamberlain et al. 1959). Culex quinquefasciatus is the primary vector of SLEV in the southeastern United States (Tsai and Mitchell 1989) and in the absence of Cx. nigripalpus it is most likely the vector of SLEV in northern Florida. Culex quinquefasciatus was the suspected vector of the 1980 focal outbr eak of SLEV in Fort Walton Beach, Florida (McCaig et al. 1994). Culex salinarius is a generalist feeder that was less associated with man and domestic animals than Cx. quinquefasciatus (Edman 1974). Culex salinarius a highly competent vector of SLEV in the laborator y, (Chamberlain 1958, Chambe rlain et al. 1959) may be an enzootic vector of SLEV in Florida (Zyzak et al. 2002). Culex restuans Theobald is a competent vector of S LEV in the laboratory (Chamberlain et al. 1959). The host preference of Cx. restuans appears to vary by locality but was thought to be primarily ornithophilic in the United St ates (Edman 1974, Mitc hell et al. 1980). Culex restuans is most abundant in Florida during late fall, winter and spring which makes it most likely an enzootic vector of SLEV during the maintenance and amplification phases of SLEV transmission (Edman 1974). When summertim e temperatures drop below 20C Cx. restuans may become active and aging mosquitoes may vector SLEV (Reiter 1988). There have been no documented isolations of SLEV from Cx. quinquefasciatus Cx. restuans or Cx. salinarius in Florida. This limits their incrimination as vectors of SLEV in

PAGE 22

22 Florida by not fulfilling the first criteria of vect or incrimination (Chambelain 1958): history of frequent virus isolation. Potential Vectors of West Nile virus Of the sixty species of mosquitoes that have tested positive for WNV in North America, thirty-eight sp ecies occur in Florida (CDC 2006b). Isolation of WNV with various polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniqu es only shows that mosquitoes were infected with WNV (Rutledge et al. 2003). Isolation of WNV from mosquitoes do es not establish their capability of transmitting WNV to vertebrate hosts (Rutledge et al. 2003). Of the thirty-eight mosquito species that had WNV isolated from them and occur in Florida, sixteen were tested in the laboratory for vector co mpetence (Turell et al. 2005). Culex restuans Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. salinarius were found to be efficient vectors of WNV in the laboratory (T urell et al. 2005). The vari ed host preference of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. salinarius (Edman 1974) make these species potential enzootic or bridge vectors of WNV. Fi ve WNV infected pools of Cx. quinquefasciatus were found in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). Four WNV infected pools of Cx. salinarius were found in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). The ornithophilic feeding behavior of Cx. restuans (Edman 1974) makes this species a potential enzootic vector of WNV. Aedes albopictus (Skuse) and Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Say) were found to be efficient vectors of WNV in the laboratory and their mammalophilic host feeding habits make them potential bridge vectors (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005). Aedes albopictus and Oc. triseriatus are very localized mosquitoes (flight range 200 m), so involvement in WNV transmission may be limited to areas where Culex spp. are present and transmitting WNV to amplifying hosts (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005). Aedes vexans (Meigen), Culiseta inornata (Williston), and Ochlerotatus canadensis canadensis (Theobald) are mammalophagic,

PAGE 23

23 have flight ranges of 2 km or greater, capable of WNV transmission in the laboratory and may play minor roles as bridge vectors of WNV to humans in Florida (Turell et al. 2005). Three WNV infected pools of Cs. melanura were found in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) was a poor ve ctor of WNV in the laboratory (Turell et al. 2005). Culiseta melanura feeds primarily on birds (Edman et al. 1972b) and may be an enzootic vector of WNV in Florida. West Nile virus has only recently been introduced to Florida and there have been very few studies demonstrating WNV tran smission to vertebrates in the field, the exception being Cx. nigripalpus (Rutledge et al. 2003). Labor atory studies of vector comp etence and field isolations of WNV only fulfill part of the requirements for v ector incrimination (Chamberlain 1958). More field studies on WNV transmission in Florida are required to fulfill all requirements of vector incrimination for the species discussed in this section (C hamberlain 1958). Potential Vectors of Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Culiseta melanura is the primary enzootic vector of EEEV in Florida (M itchell et al. 1996, Morris 1992, Scott and Weaver 1989). Culiseta melanura breeding tends to be restricted to swamp habitats (Morris 1992). Most human cases of EEEV occur within five miles of swamp foci (Morris 1992). In Florida, Cs. melanura was found to be ornithophilic, feeding predominantly on passerine birds (Edman et al. 1972b). Since Cs. melanura is ornithophilic it is considered an enzootic vector of EEEV and othe r species of mosquitoes must serve as bridge vectors to humans and horses (Edman et al. 1972b). Numerous species of mosquitoes that have b een suggested as potenti al bridge vectors of EEEV in the United States occur in Florida including Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker), Ae. vexans Ochlerotatus sollicitans (Walkeri), Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab), Cx. salinarius Oc. canadensis Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, and Aedes albopictus (Edman et al. 1972b, Scott

PAGE 24

24 and Weaver 1989, Scott et al. 1990b). Bridge vectors of EEEV to humans and horses vary from location to location (Crans a nd Schulze 1986). In New Jersey, Oc. sollicitans is the primary bridge vector of EEEV to humans in coastal areas and Cq. perturbans is the primary epizootic vector of EEEV to horses at inland sites (C rans and McCuiston 1993, Crans and Schulze 1986). Eastern equine encephalitis virus was isolated from Cx. salinarius from Tampa Bay, Florida (Wellings et al. 1972) and other locations in the eastern United States (Scott and Weaver 1989). Cx. salinarius was able to transmit EEEV fourteen days post-infection in the laboratory (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Culex salinarius may be a potential bri dge vector because its winter/spring abundance in Florida means that aging Cx. salinarius would be present during EEEV transmission periods (Zyzak et al. 2002 ). The generalist feeding habits of Cx. salinarius (Edman 1974) make it a potential enz ootic and bridge vector of EEEV. Both Oc. canadensis and An. quadrimaculatus were capable of transmitting EEEV in the laboratory (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Both species are mammalophilic and could potentially transmit EEEV to horses or humans (Edman 1971, Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Neither Ae. vexans nor Oc. sollicitans are commonly found near swamp foci in Florida, which limits their potential invo lvement as bridge vectors of EEEV in Florida (Edman 1974). Aedes vexans was not capable of transmitting EEEV in th e laboratory (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Minimum infection rates (MIR) of Cx. erraticus for EEEV in central Alabama were 3.2 per 1000 (Cupp et al. 2003). Positive Cx. erraticus pools were found from mid-June to midSeptember (Cupp et al. 2003), the same time peri od that EEEV is most active in Florida (Bigler et al. 1976). An isolation of EEEV from Cx. erraticus in Polk County, Florida was made in 1993 (Mitchell et al. 1996). Cham berlain et al. (1954) found Cx. erraticus to be a competent vector of EEEV in the laboratory. Robert son et al. (1993) documented Cx. erraticus feeding on humans in

PAGE 25

25 North Carolina. These findings suggest that Cx. erraticus may play a role as an enzootic or bridge vector of EEEV transmission in Florida. Aedes albopictus was found naturally infected with EEEV in Polk County, Florida (MIR of 1.5 per 1000) (Mitchell et al. 1992). Aedes albopictus was capable of transmitting EEEV in the laboratory (Scott et al. 1990b). J unkyards and tire piles in rural and urban areas near swamp foci may harbor populations of Ae. albopictus (OCMCD data) and may lead to focal amplification of EEEV (Mitchell et al. 1996). Coquillettidia perturbans has been incriminated as a brid ge vector of EEEV in the eastern United States (Morris 1988, Scott and Weaver 1989). Coquillettidia perturbans was the vector of EEEV in an epizootic among horses in New Jersey in 1983 (Crans and Schulze 1986). Wellings (1972) obtained fi ve EEEV isolates from Cq. perturbans in Florida. In Florida, 9% of blood meals from Cq. perturbans were avian and 91% were of mammalian origin (Edman 1971). Coquillettidia perturbans was able to transmit EEEV seven da ys post-infection in the laboratory (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Coquillettidia perturbans feeds on humans in Florida (Provost 1969). These findings suggest that Cq. perturbans may be a potential bridge vector of EEEV to humans and horses in Florida. Surveillance of Arboviruses Arboviral surveillance is the syst ematic collection of data re garding arboviral activity to predict or recognize epid emics and assess the size and progres sion of current epidemics (Bowen and Francy 1980). The objective of arbovirus su rveillance is to pred ict the likelihood of arbovirus transmission to humans so that public health measures and mo squito control activity may limit or abort human outbreaks (Eldridge 1987). There are two types of arbovirus surveillance methods: passive and active. Passive surveillance is the accumulation of unsolicited information concerning arboviral infec tion in humans or other vertebrates whereas

PAGE 26

26 active surveillance is the intentional collection of specimens or data. There are four methods for conducting active arboviral surveillan ce: detection of human diseas e or infection, observation of weather patterns, surveillance of vector populations, and the tes ting of non-human vertebrates (Bowen and Francy 1980). Human Surveillance Human surveillance for arboviral encephalitis incidence is conducte d by public health officials. A passive human surveillance system requires local physicians and hospital staff to record and report suspect human cases of arboviral in fection to local health departments. In the past, cases were not being reported in a timely manner or reported case information was not assimilated properly, allowing epidemics to go unnoticed (Chamberlain 1980). In many regions where there is little money for mosquito cont rol operations and arbovira l surveillance, the only affordable method for arboviral surveillance is human surveillance (Bowen and Francy 1980, CDC 2003). Once public health officials have determined that an arboviral epidemic is imminent or already in progress the most common measures of control are emergenc y aerial adulticide spraying and public service announcements (PSAs). The drawback to human surveillance is that arboviral amplification is al ready at high levels in vector and amplifying host populations by the time incidental human cases are reported. The delayed vector control will likely have little impact on epidemic transmission if most arbovira l transmission has already occurred (Nelson et al. 1983). Day and Lewis (1992) discussed the difficulties of human surveillance due to the several week time lag between the date of onset, the first (acute phase) and second (convalescent phase) blood samples and the diagnostic tests. Nelson et al. (1983) sugg ested that clinically suspected SLEV cases should be reported to redu ce the reaction time of mos quito control efforts.

PAGE 27

27 Human arboviral case infections in the United States are defined as possible, probable, and confirmed cases. Possible and probable human case definitions of arbovi ral disease require the display of symptoms associated with the disease and positive antibody results from one acute or convalescent human sera, cerebrospinal fluid (C SF) or other body fluids. Confirmed human case definition requires the display of symptoms and po sitive results with a fourfold increase between acute and convalescent serum, CSF, or other body fluid or the dire ct isolation of arbovirus or demonstration of arboviral genomic sequences in human tissue, blood, CSF, or other body fluid (Petersen and Marfin 2002). In Florida human diseases are monitored by th e Florida Department of Health (FDOH) and County Health Departments (CHD). Human se ra are screened for arboviruses with a hemagluttination inhibition (HI) assay and all po sitives are confirmed with an immunoglobulin M-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent as say (MAC-ELISA). A plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) is used to differentiate between WNV and SLEV. Cerebrospinal fluid samples are tested for WNV with MAC-ELISA. A ll tests are performed free of charge at the DOH Bureau of Laboratory Services in Tampa or Jacksonville (Blackmore et al. 2003). Human case reports are entered into Merlin, a real time el ectronic reporting system for all diseases that affect humans (FDOH 2005). All probable and c onfirmed human cases are then entered into Arbo-NET, a cooperative West Nile virus surveillance database a nd reported to the Centers for Disease Control (Marfin et al. 2001). Even with a nationwide human surveillance system the data generated are problematic because of the va riability and inaccuracies in disease reporting. This makes the estimation of disease incidence an d the interpretation of potential risks difficult (Brownstein et al. 2004).

PAGE 28

28 Weather Patterns Weather patterns that preceded past arbovira l epidemics can be analyzed to formulate predictions of future arboviral transmission potential. These pr edictions can provide an early warning of pending arboviral epidemics so that public health officials and mosquito control programs can increase surveillanc e and control efforts to reduce epidemic potential. Weather patterns are not indicativ e of arboviral presence or amplification in mosquito vectors or vertebrate hosts. Field isolations of arbovirus in mosquitoes or vertebrate hosts or isolation of arboviral antibodies from sentinel and wild animals is required for confirma tion of viral activity. Tracking weather patterns is an easy and low co st method that when used in combination with human surveillance, is the best alternative fo r areas lacking a budget for a standing mosquito control and surveillance operati ons (Bowen and Francy 1980). Recently, several models have been created wh ich correlate water table depth and surface wetness in peninsular Florida with SLEV or WN V transmission to birds and humans (Shaman et al. 2002, 2003a, 2004a, 2004b, 2005). A topographical ly based hydrology model for southcentral Florida was created to predict surface le vel wetness (Shaman et al. 2002). This model was validated using groundwater well measuremen ts and surface water le vels throughout Florida (Shaman et al. 2003b). Sentinel chicken seroconve rsion data from 1978 to 2002 in Indian River County and the topographically based hydrology model were used to assess past epidemic and non-epidemic levels of SLEV transmission with th e expectation that this model will be able to forecast future SLEV epidemics (Shaman et al. 2004b). Vector Surveillance Vector surveillance for arbovi rus transmission potential can involve monitoring of mosquito abundance, parity status of the mos quito population and minimum infection rates of mosquitoes. Vector surveillance can be costly to a mosquito control dist rict or public health

PAGE 29

29 department which means that not all three factor s can always be assessed (Bowen and Francy 1980, Scott et al. 2001). Monitoring of Mosquito Abundance There are many techniques available to a ssess mosquito populations (Service 1976). Long-term baseline data sets of mosquito abunda nce for each trap site with consistent sampling methods demonstrate fluctuations in mosquito abundance over time (Day and Lewis 1991). In peninsular Florida the primary arboviral vector of concern, Cx. nigripalpus can be readily caught by light traps, CDC baited light traps, gr ound aspirations, avian baited lard can traps (Day and Lewis 1991), and sentinel chicken coop exit trap s (T. P. Breaud and D. A. Shroyer, personal communication). Indian River County Mosqui to Control District (Vero Beach, FL) has discontinued the use of light traps in favor of aspiration of resting mosquitoes (Day and Lewis 1991). Mosquitoes collected by aspiration can be analyzed to determine mosquito population dynamics such as abundance, migration, blood fe eding, parity, and age (Day and Lewis 1991). Mosquito abundance has been correlated with arbovirus transmission with mixed success. In California, Reeves (1 968) predicted that if Culex tarsalis Coquillett light trap catches were kept below ten mosquitoes per night SLEV huma n cases would not occur. Blackmore et al. (1962) found no correlation between Cx. tarsalis abundance and SLEV or WEEV transmission in Colorado. Olson et al. (1979) found that SLEV and WEEV transmission was affected by varied abundance of Cx. tarsalis in rural and urban Califor nia habitats. The 1961 SLEV epidemic in Tampa Bay, FL was characterized by high transmission rates to humans, low numbers of complaint calls and low populations of mosquitoes in urban areas (Mulrennan 1969, Rogers 1969). Recent focal outbreaks of WNV in th e eastern United States have been associated with low densities of Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus (CDC 2003). These disparities in correlation of mosquito abundance and epidemic transmission render mosquito abundance an

PAGE 30

30 invalid predictor of arbovira l transmission and therefore a poor surveillance technique. Mosquito abundance alone may be a poor pred ictor of epidemic transmission but when combined with parity information it can be impor tant for the timing and assessment of mosquito control efforts during arbovi ral epidemics (Day 1991). Parity Analysis Parity analysis is a technique that is used to estimate the physiological age of an anautogenous (mosquito that requires a blood meal before the development of eggs) mosquito. Parity analysis involves dissection and examinati on of the ovaries for the presence or absence of tracheolar skeins. Coiled tracheole skeins indica te a nulliparous (has not laid eggs) mosquito. Extended tracheoles indicate a parous (has laid eggs) mosquito (Crans and McCuiston 1993). A parous mosquito indicates that it has obtained at least one blo od meal and may have lived long enough to become infective. A period of time, known as the extrinsic incubation period, must pass after the ingestion of blood before a mosquito can infect another host (Foster and Walker 2002). The process of extrinsic incubation requi res the ingestion of arbovirus by a mosquito vector, multiplication of arbovi rus in the midgut cells, escape from the midgut, dissemination throughout the hemocoel, and infection of the sa livary glands (Foster and Walker 2002). Assessment of parity status in mosquito popul ations provides an es timate of how many mosquitoes might be infec tive (Bowen and Francy 1980). Since climatological regulation of Cx. nigripalpus oviposition is crucial for SLEV epidemics (Day et al. 1990) the de termination of parity status of Cx. nigripalpus populations during an epidemic is important for the timing of adult mosquito control operations (Day 1991). Minimum Infection Rates in Mosquitoes Virus isolation from mosquitoes is a part of vector incrimination (Chamberlain 1958) and has been used for the detection of new arboviruses in an area (Scott et al 2001). Virus isolation

PAGE 31

31 is often conducted during arboviral epidemics but rarely during non-epidemic periods (Bowen and Francy 1980, Shroyer 1991). Minimum infection rates (MIR) are determin ed by the collection, identifica tion, pooling, and processing of mosquitoes for arbovirus isol ation. Reeves et al. (1961) calculated minimum infection rates using Equation 1-1. Number of positive pools x 1,000 (Equation 1-1) Number of mosquitoes tested The MIR only represents the minimum number of infected mosquitoes, not the minimum number of infective mosquitoes. Similar to mosquito abundance data, there must be baseline data of MIRs during non-epidemic periods to unde rstand what epidemic MIR levels represent as a risk assessment of arboviral infection to humans (Shroyer 1991). Transmission rates of arboviruses to sentinel vertebrates more accurately reflect the potential for mosquitoes to transmit arboviruses. To determine transmissi on rates sentinel hosts must be placed in the field, determine the numbe r of seroconversions in hosts, and capture as many mosquitoes that come to f eed on the hosts as possible (Reeves et al. 1961). Reeves et al. (1961) calculated transmissi on rates using Equation 1-2. Number of birds infected x 1,000 (Equation 1-2) Total mosquitoes feeding Reeves et al. (1961) found both SLEV and WEEV virus infection rates in Cx. tarsalis to be higher than transmission rates to sentinel chic kens. Rutledge et al. (2003) found WNV infection rates in Cx. nigripalpus to be higher than WNV transmission rates to sentinel chickens. One factor attributed to higher MI Rs than transmission rates is the extrinsic incubation period. Mosquitoes may be infected with arbovirus which would raise the MIR but sufficient time may not have passed for the mosquito to be infective which would not increase the transmission rate.

PAGE 32

32 Shroyer (1991) found that during non-epidemic periods the MIRs for SLEV in Indian River County, FL were very low. It was very difficult to statistically determine confidence intervals and sampling error was very high becau se of the low frequencies of SLEV, which makes direct estimates of human risk from MI Rs difficult (Shroyer 1991). While isolation of arboviruses from mosquito vectors is important for vector incrimination (Chamberlain 1958), it is of little value as a su rveillance tool to predict the threat of human arbovi ral infection in Florida (Shroyer 1991). Non-Human Vertebrate Surveillance Surveillance of non-human vertebrates involve s the testing of blood or tissue specimens from vertebrates for the presence of arboviruses or antibodies to arboviruses (Bowen and Francy 1980). Surveillance of non-human ve rtebrates uses wild, domestic and sentinel animals. Wild animal surveillance requires the collection of liv e or dead wild vertebrates and obtainment of serum or tissue for detection of serologic or viro logic evidence of arboviruses. Domestic animal surveillance uses animals associated with humans that are exposed to natu ral vector populations (i.e., backyard chicken flocks, cattle). Sentinel animals are those that are purposely exposed to natural vector populations in a permanent location and routinely tested for antibodies to arboviruses. Any vertebrate su rveillance system used requires years of baseline data during epidemic and non-epidemic periods to determin e antibody and virus isolation thresholds for prediction and assessment of arboviral ac tivity (Bowen and Francy 1980, Day 1989). Live, Wild Vertebrate Surveillance Live, wild vertebrate surveillance requires the active capture of the vertebrate and collection of serum or secretions that may contain virus or antibodies to the arbovirus of concern. Virus isolation is sometimes performed in c onjunction with antibody de tection to establish potential vertebrate reservoir and amplification hosts (Scott 1 988). The use of mobile, wild

PAGE 33

33 animals to monitor arboviral activity provides a gr eater range of area to be sampled per sampling effort (Komar 2001, Trainer 1970). Wild bird surveillance Wild birds are the primary verteb rates that are tested for serosurveys and virus isolation in eastern United States as they are the primary reservoir and am plification hosts of EEEV, SLEV, WNV, and HJ. Wild bird surveillance can target either peridomestic birds associated with epidemic transmission cycles (Gruwell et al. 200 0) or non-peridomestic birds associated with enzootic transmission cycles (Crans et al. 1994). Peridomestic birds associated with epidemic transmission cycles are those that have been introduced to the United States such as pigeons ( Columba livia ), House Sparrows ( Passer domesticus ), House Finches ( Carpodacus mexicanus ), Mourning Doves ( Zenaida macroura ), and European Starlings ( Sturnis vulgaris ) (Allison et al. 2004, Bowen and Francy 1980, Gruwell et al. 2000, Komar et al. 1999, Komar et al. 2001, Reisen et al. 2004). When virus levels rise sharply in peridomes tic birds, there is an imminent threat to humans (McLean et al. 1983). Bowe n and Francy (1980) sugge st that the risk of arboviral transmission of SLEV to humans is h igh when the wild bird antibody prevalence in urban settings is above 15 percent. The level of risk of arbovirus transmission to humans in relation to antibody prevalence in wild birds varies based on the vector/host/disease relationships of the region. When a bird popul ation involved in epizootic tran smission cycles has high levels of non-immune birds the lik elihood of an epizootic is greater as there ar e many susceptible birds present (Day 2001). The strength of wild bird surveilla nce is that it can accurately sample the arboviral activity of amplifica tion hosts over a wide area as o pposed to sentinel birds which represent focal arbovirus tran smission in a fixed location. Direct arbovirus isolation is rare but it does provide the be st indicator of vertebrate involvement in transmission cycles (Scott 1988). As direct virus isolation is rare, many

PAGE 34

34 investigators have relied on antibody surveys to de termine past arbovirus infection history of wild birds. Birds with high field seroprevalan ces only indicate past infections, not a greater potential for viral amplification. Species of bi rds with high field seropevalance need to have laboratory studies of viremia titers and antibody responses to arboviral challenge to determine their importance as arborviral amplifiers (Scott 1988). Birds hatched the year that a serosurvey was conducted show recent arbovirus transmission (Beveroth et al. 2006, Holden et al. 1973). Birds less than on e month old with low level antibody response most likely have maternal anti bodies present (CDC 2003). Birds older than one year may have been infected before the year of the serosurvey. In the eastern United States, hatching year pigeons and House Sparrows are often sampled for SLEV and WNV virus isolation (Allison et al. 2004, Bowen and Francy 1980, Komar et al. 2001). Large populations of nestling pigeons and House Sparrows occur in pe ridomestic habitat and an increase in arbovirus isolation rate from these species can predict transmission to humans (Holden et al. 1973). Previously banded and blood sampled birds that are recaptured provide a precise time frame of arboviral infection. Unfortunately there are generally low reca pture rates during serosurveys (Day and Stark 1999, Scott et al. 2001). When wild bird surveillance data are coll ected in a systematic manner, wild bird surveillance can provide an ear ly warning of arbovirus transmission to humans (Bowen and Francy 1980, Holden et al. 1973). Wild mammal surveillance Wild mammals, primarily rodents, have been used for serosurveys and virus isolation of California Encephalitis virus complex (family Bunyaviridae genus Bunyavirus CEV), Everglades virus (family Togaviridae genus Alphavirus EVEV), EEEV, and SLEV in Florida (Bigler and Hoff 1975, Chamberlain et al. 1969, Day et al. 1996, Jennings et al. 1968, Wellings

PAGE 35

35 et al. 1972). Wild mammals are the reservoir hosts for CEV (Bigler a nd Hoff 1975) and EVEV (Day et al. 1996), possibly SLEV (Bigler a nd Hoff 1975, Day et al. 1995, Herbold et al. 1983), and are incidental, dead end hosts for WNV and EEEV. Everglades virus is only found in south Fl orida (Calisher and Karabatsos 1988). The primary reservoir hosts of EVEV are rode nts, especially Hispid Cotton Rats ( Sigmodon hispidus ) (Coffey et al. 2004) and Cotton Mice ( Peromyscus gossypinus ) (Chamberlain et al. 1969). Rodents most commonly found infected with viru s or presence of antibodies to EVEV are the Cotton Rat, Rattus sp., and Cotton Mice (Bigle r and Hoff 1975, Chamberl ain et al. 1969, Day et al. 1996). In addition to rodents, the raccoon ( Procyon lotor ) was commonly found positive for antibodies to EVEV in South Flor ida (Bigler 1971). Clinical EVEV disease in humans is rare in South Florida and there is no routine survei llance of wild mammal s (Sudia et al. 1969). St. Louis encephalitis virus has been isolated from several wild bat species in the United States (Allen et al. 1970, Herbol d et al. 1983). Antibodies to S LEV virus have been found in deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) (Trainer 1970), cotton mouse ( Peromyscus gossypinus ), opossums ( Didelphis marsupialis ), and raccoons (Bigler 1971). The raccoon specimens were obtained during rabies surveys and demonstrates the bene fits of testing mammals for arboviruses that were passively obtained from other wild animal collections (Bigler 1971). Day et al. (1995) found 31% (59 /189), armadillos positive for SLEV antibodies in Florida. Wild mammal populations have not been associ ated with WNV amplification in the United States. Pilipski et al. (2004) found 2% (2/83) bats positive for WNV antibodies in New Jersey and New York. One percent (2/149) of Mexican free-tailed bats ( Tadarida brasiliensis ) from Louisiana were positive for WNV antibodies (Dav is et al. 2005). Ne ither Big brown bats ( Eptesicus fuscus ) or the Mexican free-taile d bats are likely amplifi cation hosts of WNV because

PAGE 36

36 of absent or low viremia titers (Davis et al. 2005). In laboratory tests, the Eastern cottontail rabbit, Sylvilagus floridanus developed sufficient WNV viremia (>105 CID50s/mL) to infect feeding mosquitoes (Tiawsirisup et al. 2005). Cottontail rabbits are found in peridomestic habitats and could play a role in peridomestic transmission cycl es of WNV (Tiawsirisup et al. 2005). Wild reptile surveillance Reptiles have been suggested as poten tial overwintering hosts for EEEV and WEEV because of their long lasting viremias (Bowen 1977, Gebhardt and Hill 1960, Hayes et al. 1964) but have not been used in routine surveillance oper ations in the United States. This is due to the safety risks associated with th e capture (e.g., snakes and alligat ors) and difficulty of bleeding reptiles (e.g., turtles) (Sudia et al. 1970). Kle nk and Komar (2003) found the Green Iguana ( Iguana iguana ), Florida Garter Snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis ), and Red-ear Slider ( Trachymes scripta elegens ) to be unlikely reservoir hosts for WNV because of low tittered viremia < 103.2 PFU/mL of serum. Young alligators circ ulate WNV viremia titers as high as 106.2 PFU/mL for a duration of one to two weeks which makes them potential amplifying hosts (Klenk et al. 2004). The role that wild alligators play in WN V epidemiology has not yet been determined (Klenk et al. 2004). Dead, Wild Bird Surveillance West Nile virus epidemics in the United Stat es have been characterized by high mortality in American Crows ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ) which has led to the de velopment of dead bird surveillance (Eidson 2001, Eids on et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Johnson et al. 2006, Julian et al. 2002, Komar 2001, Marfin et al. 2001). Dead bird surveillance is a passive system that is established by state and local h ealth departments for the public to report dead birds (Eidson 2001). Dead bird surveillance systems compile dead bird sightings, and dead bird testing

PAGE 37

37 involves collection and testing dead bird specimens for West Nile virus infection (Eidson 2001). Results from both dead bird sightings and dead bi rd testing systems are tabulated and reported by county health departments to Arbo-NET (Marfin et al. 2001). Collection of dead or dying bird specimens fo r testing of WNV can be used to determine WNV presence in an area. Although this system is considered active it still relies on passive public reports for the location of specimens (Eidson 2001). By 2006 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had reported 285 species of birds that tested positive for WNV (CDC 2006c). In the northern United States crows have been found to be the most sensitive indicator of WNV, whereas in the southern United States Blue Jays have b een the most sensitive indicator of WNV (CDC 2003). Problems with dead bird testing include: dela ys in test results (E idson 2001), reliance on public interest for dead bird reports (Eidson 2001, Julian et al. 2002, Ward et al. 2006), the location the dead bird was found may not be th e area that the bird was infected (CDC 2003), dead bird surveillance data from different areas with different co llection protocols are difficult to compare regionally (CDC 2003), and the inability to estimate incidence of virus infection in the wild bird population (Eidson 2001). In Florida, the Fish and Wildlife Conser vation Commission (FWCC) manages a bird mortality database. This system allows th e public, county health departments, or FWCC personnel to report dead bird si ghtings. Dead birds are necr opsied and test ed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PC R) for WNV at the DOH Bureau of Laboratory Services, Tampa (Blackmore et al. 2003). There have been numerous retrospective studies demonstrating the effectiveness of dead bird sightings or dead bird testing systems at foreshadowing human WNV incidence in the

PAGE 38

38 northeastern United States (Eidson et al. 2001a 2001b, 2001c, 2005; Guptill et al. 2003, Julian et al. 2002, Watson et al. 2004a). Unfortunately dead bird surveillance and dead bird testing have been implemented in many areas wi thout proper real-time analysis of the data co llected. This leads to systems that merely detect WNV in a given area but do not f unction as surveillance because they cannot predict the risk of human infection (Guptill et al. 2003). Domestic Animal Surveillance Domestic animal surveillance is the use of domesticated or farmed animals for either passive or active arbovirus surveillance. Passive animal surveillance relies on local veterinarians to diagnose infected animals and report cases to animal morbidity reporting systems or public health officials (Nichols and Bigl er 1967). In Florida, specimens or tissue samples are sent to the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Servic es (DACS) Division of Animal Industry and Bureau of Diagnostic Laboratory Activities or the Department of Health (DOH) Laboratory, Tampa for arbovirus isolation or antibody tests (FDOH 2005). Active domestic animal surveillance involve s the occasional or routine sampling of domestic animals for arbovirus infection. Occasi onal antibody serosurveys of domestic animal populations are considered retrospe ctive and should be used in ar eas that lack routine arbovirus surveillance (Nichols and Bigler 1967). Routine antibody serosu rveys or virus isolations from domestic animals provide a known period of infecti on. Drawbacks to the use of domestic animal surveillance include a high tur nover of animals making repeated sampling from the same individual difficult (Endy and Nisalak 2002) a nd occasionally, inadequate knowledge of the animals life history (Dic kerman and Scherer 1983). Domestic mammals that have been used for arboviral surveillance include horses (Monath et al. 1985), cattle (Gard et al. 1988), goats (Peiris et al. 1993), and pigs (Geevarghese et al. 1987).

PAGE 39

39 Passive horse surveillance is most co mmonly used for monitoring EEEV, WEEV, and WNV as horses may develop infections of the central nervous system in response to these viruses but are not considered important reser voir hosts (Scott and Weaver 1989, Trock et al. 2001). Horse cases have preceded human cases in some epidemics of WNV (CDC 2003) and EEEV (Scott and Weaver 1989). In Florida, befo re the statewide use of sentinel chickens, equine morbidity was the best indicator of EEEV activity (Bigler et al 1976), but Hayes and Hess (1964) found no correlation of EEEV between horse and human cases in Florida from 1938 through 1961. In Florida, horse serum is screened by HI assay at the Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (Kissimmee, FL) for Flavivirus and Alphavirus antibodies. Confirmation tests for WNV or EEEV by MAC-ELISA and PRNT are perf ormed at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa (Blackmore et al 2003). Virus isolati on from blood, brain, and spinal cord tissues can be performed with rabb it kidney and Vero cell cultures with Alphavirus isolates identified by complement fixation tests (Ostlund et al. 2001). Many birds, such as emus ( Dromaius novaehollandiae ) and pheasants ( Phasianus colchicus ) have been introduced to North America ar e farmed for game animals and commodity markets (Tully et al. 1992). Massive die offs of farm raised birds in the United States caused by EEEV have been observed in emus (Day and St ark 1996a, Tully et al. 1992), pheasants (Tyzzer et al. 1938), White Pekin duc klings (Dougherty and Price 196 0), and Chukar Partridges ( Alectoris chukar ) (Ranck et al. 1965). Many EEEV outbr eaks in pheasants are driven by birdto-bird transmission (Holden 1955). In Florida case fatality ra tes due to EEEV in emus have been reported as high as 14% (Day and Stark 199 6a), pheasants up to 45%, and partridges up to

PAGE 40

40 19% (Bigler et al. 1976). Human epidemics of EEEV have been preceded by epizootics among gamebirds (Scott and Weaver 1989). Zoological parks should be monitored for avia n mortality (CDC 2003). Many bird species in zoo collections are exotic and may experience high mortality when first introduced to WNV. In New York in 1999, eight different species of exotic birds had deaths attributable to WNV (Eidson et al. 2001a, Rappole et al. 2000). Of the 285 bird species found dead and positive for WNV, 54 species were captive and e xotic to North America (CDC 2006c). Backyard chicken flocks have been used in active surveillance programs, especially in areas where no other sentinel surveillance is rou tinely conducted. Flocks used for surveillance should be no more than 30 birds (Bigler et al. 1976). Large commercial fl ocks are usually reared indoors, inaccessible to mosquitoes, and in num bers that are so large the chance of finding antibodies in birds is remote. Unless chickens are bled on a routine ba sis, backyard chicken flocks are only useful in determination of past arboviral activity and do little to determine current arboviral activity. Chickens less than one year old should be used in serosurveys to detect arboviral activity in the last ye ar (Nichols and Bigler 1967). B ackyard chickens and domestic geese were found to be ideal sentinels for WN V in New York City during 1999 (Komar et al. 2001). In the southeast there have been several reports of farmed American alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ) die-offs caused by WNV (Jacobson et al 2005, Klenk et al. 2004, Miller et al. 2003). On one alligator farm in Georgia more than 10% of the young alligators succumbed to WNV (Miller et al. 2003). It has been shown that alligators can directly transmit WNV to tankmates (Klenk et al. 2004). Horsemeat infected with WNV and fed to alligators was shown to be the cause of an outbreak in Georgia (Miller et al. 2003). With multiple routes of infection for

PAGE 41

41 WNV in alligators it is difficult to use alligato r die-offs as an indication of arboviral activity circulating in local mosquito populations. Outb reaks on alligator farms are cause for public health concern as direct transmission of WNV to human alligator handlers has been documented (Klenk et al. 2004). Sentinel Animal Surveillance Sentinel animals are vertebrates maintained at a specific locati on, exposed to natural populations of mosquitoes, and routinely tested fo r evidence of arboviral in fection. Evidence of arbovirus infection is determined indirectly by testing blood fo r a seroconversion (production of specific antibodies to arboviruses) or by direct virus isolation (Komar and Spielman 1995). Vertebrate sentinels are critical for establishing proof of virus transmission in the absence of human and horse arbovirus cases or bird die-offs (Day and Lewi s 1991). Caged sentinel animals provide information of arbovirus transmission at an exact locati on (Komar and Spielman 1995). Komar (2001) stated that the ideal sentinel {vertebrate} is unifo rmly susceptible to infection, resistant to disease, rapidly de velops a detectable immune res ponse, easily maintained, presents negligible health risks to handler s, does not contribute to local pa thogen transmission cycles, and seroconverts to the target pathogen before the onset of disease outbreaks in the community. Other factors to consider when selecting a se ntinel animal are aggressiveness toward other animals sharing the cage, its ability to withst and the local environmental conditions, and the host/vector/disease dynamics for the area (Sudia et al. 1970). Birds are commonly used as sentinels but may only represent enzootic transmission cycles between predominantly ornithophilic mosquitoes (i.e., Cx. pipiens Cs. melanura ) and the viruses they vector: whereas a sentinel mammal would indicate spillover of vi rus into an epidemic transmission cycle by incidental feeding on non-ta rget hosts or feeding by mammalophilic bridge vectors (i.e., Cq. perturbans Ae. albopictus ). Selection of the ideal sentinel vertebrate is

PAGE 42

42 complicated as there is no one ve rtebrate that works well for dete ction of all arbovi ruses in every geographic region. Sentinel animal use is furt her complicated by the n eed to select proper monitoring sites to represen t enzootic or epidemic transmission (Komar 2001). Sentinel mammals Mammals are infrequently used as sentin els for arboviruses as small mammals may experience high levels of mortality (Ventura an d Ehrenkranz 1975), larger species are difficult to maintain, and cross reactivity wi th other viruses may confound te st results (Day et al. 1996). Rabbits and rodents have been used as sentinel s for CEV and EVEV in Florida (Jennings et al. 1968, Ventura and Ehrenkranz 1975). Sentinel ma mmals can be bled routinely to monitor seroconversion and mammals that die during routine exposure should be submitted to a laboratory for virus isolation (Sudia et al. 1970). Ventura and Ehrenkranz (1975) exposed sentinel hamsters in South Florida for the de tection of EVEV. Over 40% of the hamsters exposed were killed by predators or stolen (Ventura and Ehrenkranz 1975). Sentinel birds Birds have been used routinely in arbovira l surveillance programs for many decades (Moore et al. 1993). The birds most often used as avian sentinels are chickens, pigeons, pheasant, and quail (Bowen and Francy 1980, Morri s et al. 1994, Reisen et al. 1992, Williams et al. 1972). Within the United States bird species va ry in their usefulness as sentinel animals from region to region based on vector/host/disease dynamic s. In the United States, sentinel birds have been used for arboviral surveillance in Alabam a, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Je rsey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah (Komar 2001). The various organizations c onducting avian sentinel su rveillance in a wide range of geographic locations have used differe nt bird species, varying numbers of sites,

PAGE 43

43 numbers of birds exposed per site, heights a nd types of exposure de vices, various bleeding regimens and techniques, and laboratory tests. The number of birds used per site ranges from 1 to 50 and depends on the species and type of exposure device (Bellamy and Reeves 1952, Rainey et al. 1962). Public health and mosquito control resources are limited so the number of bi rds exposed at a site and the number of sites must be chosen carefully (Bowen and Francy 19 80). In densely populated areas fewer sentinel sites are available (Gergis and Pr esser 1988). Large numbers of ch ickens (25) and pigeons (30) were exposed at ten sites between two counties in Los Angeles, the second largest city in America (Gergis and Presser 1988). The use of fewer sentinels, 6 to 10, would reduce space requirements, maintenance and eyesore to th e public. By reducing these problems more sentinels could be dispersed over a wider area and increase the chance of detecting focal transmission points. The reduction of space requi rements, maintenance and eyesore issues may allow for the deployment of sentinels at public facilities (e.g., public heal th departments, pump stations, wastewater treatment plan ts, electrical substations) or pr ivate residences. In urbanized areas where sentinels cannot be placed wild bi rd populations should be tested (Gergis and Presser 1988). Sentinel birds should be placed in the field prior to mosquito activity in northern states or kept in the field thr oughout the year in southern states that experience mosquito activity throughout the year (CDC 2003). Birds should be bled and tested for previous arboviral infection before placement in the field. Sentinel birds are bled on weekly (Day and Stark 1996b), bi-week ly (Crans 1986), or monthly (Reisen et al. 1992) schedules. Blood (0 .5 to 4.0cc) is drawn by brachial or jugular venipuncture (Day 1989, Reisen et al. 1992) or by lancet comb prick (Reisen et al. 2004).

PAGE 44

44 In Florida, during 2005, 33 of 67 counties conduc ted sentinel chicken surveillance (Stark and Kazanis 2005). Most programs typically expose six chickens, with a range of four to eight chickens per site throughout the year. Blood samples are taken vi a veinipuncture of the jugular or brachial veins with a syringe and plunger. Th e blood is dispensed into vacutainers and usually centrifuged at Mosquito Control for the separatio n of blood and serum. Serum samples are then packaged and shipped to the DOH Bureau of Laboratory Services in Tampa, FL. Hemagglutination Inhibition test is the initial screening test us ed to determine antibody response to Alphaviruses or Flaviviruses. Positive HI results for Flaviviruses are identified by IgMcapture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELI SA). West Nile virus negative birds are re-bled and screened by the HI test. Samples positive during the second HI test are confirmed and identified as SLEV or WNV by the plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT). Alphavirus positives are confirmed and identified as EEEV or HJ by PRNT. The DOH Bureau of Laboratory Services in Tampa pr ocesses 1200 to 1500 HI screening tests per week. On Fridays the results of all positive chickens in the state are then faxed to every participating county and negative/positive results of each chicken are faxed to the counties that submitted the samples (L. M. Stark, personal communication). Cherry et al. (2001) reported th at fourteen sentinel chicken fl ocks failed to seroconvert for WNV before human infection on Staten Island and in New York City. These areas cover roughly 830 km2 and contain approximately 8.1 million people. With roughly 84 sentinel chickens exposed and 8.1 million humans, there was a very low chance that the chickens were bitten by infected mosquitoes before human inf ection. In New York State, sentinel chicken surveillance has been ceased in favor of mos quito and dead bird su rveillance (Darbro and Harrington 2006).

PAGE 45

45 Sentinel chickens were found to be relative ly insensitive as pred ictors of human EEEV cases in Florida (Bigler et al. 1976, Day and Stark 1996b). This may be due to lower feeding rates on caged sentinels by Cs. melanura the primary vector of EEEV (Scott and Weaver 1989). Sentinel chickens in California were tested for antibodies to Cx. tarsalis salivary gland antigens (Trevejo and Reeves 2005). Chicke ns seropositive for antibodies to Cx. tarsalis salivary gland antigens were more likely to seroconvert to S LEV than salivary gland antigen seronegative chickens (Trevejo and Reeves 2005). Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of SLEV in California (Mitchell et al. 1980) so it follo ws that its absence would l ead to an absence of SLEV transmission. If this same technique of an tibody detection to salivar y gland antigens from Cs. melanura then seronegative chickens for antibodies to Cs. melanura salivary gland antigens could explain a lack of EEEV transmissi on to sentinel chickens in Florida. An important consideration when placing sentin els in the field is the height at which sentinels are exposed. Sentinel chickens ma intained at ground level did not predict WNV transmission before human incidence in New York City (Cherry et al. 2001). Culex pipiens and Cx. restuans are suspected vectors of WNV in New York (Anderson et al. 2004, Apperson et al. 2004). In the northeast, both Cx. pipiens and Cx. restuans host-seek in the tree canopy and at ground level (Anderson et al. 2004, Darbro and Harrington 2006, Deegan et al. 2005). Darbro and Harrington (2006) caught significantly more mosquitoes in the tree canopy than on the ground with house sparrows and chickens as bait and they recommend the use of ground level and tree canopy sentinel surveilla nce. Deegan et al. (2005) ex posed sentinel pigeons at canopy and ground levels and found significantly highe r seroconversion rates for WNV at the canopy level. Sentinel birds exposed at canopy levels are contained in modified lard cans (Bellamy and

PAGE 46

46 Reeves 1952) or the Ehrenberg pigeon trap (Dow ning and Crans 1977) and typically exposed for one night. Interpretation of sentinel bird results can be complicated. Ye ars of baseline data in an area during epidemic and non-epidemic years are requ ired. When conducting regional surveillance, mean annual seroconversion rates (MASR), excl uding epidemic years should be calculated separately for each county (Day and Stark 1996b). When the real time ASR is higher than the MASR there is generally cause for concern. At a regional level the comparison of real time ASRs to the MASR shows increases and decrea ses of arbovirus activity between counties and identifies viral foci that cro ss county lines (Day et al. 1991). At the county level, certain sentinel sites wi ll be more likely to have positive sentinels depending on host/vector/disease dynamics (Day et al. 1991). Certain si tes within counties will more accurately represent enzootic/sylvan tran smission (e.g., swamps, wooded areas) and other sites will represent peridomestic/urban transmissi on cycles (e.g., backyards, urban parks). Single serocoversions of sentinels in enzootic/sylva n transmission sites are typically not cause for public health concern as these sites will e xperience background transmission quite often. Williams et al. (1972) found that sites deep inside sw amps were likely to have elevated levels of EEEV transmission earlier in the season than sites at the edge of the swamp and upland sites. An increase in sentinel seroconversion rates in open, dry sites in sout h Florida may represent imminent threat of arbovirus transmission to humans by Cx. nigripalpus (Day and Carlson 1985). As autumn rainfalls occur and humidity levels increase Cx. nigripalpus will exit previous resting sites (e.g., wooded hammocks) and blood feed in open dry sites (e.g., fields, backyards, urban areas) increasing the like lihood of SLEV transmission to humans (Day and Carlson 1985, Day and Edman 1988). In Florida, seroconversion rates of SLEV above 30 percent over a three

PAGE 47

47 week period are cause for concern (Day and Le wis 1992). High seroconver sion rates earlier in the transmission season (May to July) represent gr eater threat to human cases than equally high seroconverison rates later in the season (August to December) (Day and Lewis 1992). There are many positives to using chickens as arbovirus sentinels. Chickens are commercially available and relatively inexpensive ~$5 to 7 (Komar and Spielman 1995). Several strains of chickens are capable of e nduring extreme outdoor cond itions (OBryan and Jefferson 1991). Chickens are highly attractive to Culex spp. mosquitoes. In the most extreme case in Orange County, FL an estimated 2.3 million mosquitoes, mostly Culex were recovered from one exit trap collection (OCMCD data). Sen tinel chickens are inacti ve after sunset, during the period of Culex spp. blood feeding activity (Day and Edman 1984). Adult chickens survive EEEV (Byrne and Robbins 1961), WEEV, SLEV (LaM otte et al. 1967), and WNV (Senne et al. 2000) infections. Chickens develop detectable antibodies to EEEV within 4 days (Olson et al. 1991), WEEV within 10 days, SLEV within 14 days (Reisen et al. 1994), and WNV within eight days (Senne et al. 2000). Chickens run shor t duration, low-level viremias to WEEV, SLEV (Reisen et al. 1994), and WNV (Lange vin et al. 2001) with little threat of passing the virus to other mosquitoes. During the 1990 SLEV outbreak in Florida sentinel chicken seroconversion rates above the MASR were found in several counties before hu man infection (Day and Stark 1996b). There are disadvantages to using sentinel chic kens. Chickens are larger than most other sentinel birds and therefore more expensive to feed and require more cage space (Komar and Spielman 1995). During epidemics when many sen tinel chickens are sero converting they need to be rapidly replaced it may be difficult to find poultry distri butors with the particular breed (White leghorns in Florida) that is desired (O Bryan and Jefferson 1991). Chickens may become

PAGE 48

48 aggressive toward cage mates leading to mortalit y (OCMCD data). Dela yed results because of antibody development and lab confirmation are a nother major drawback to sentinel chicken surveillance or any avian survei llance (OBryan and Jefferson 1991). It takes 8 to 21 days for HI antibodies to SLEV to develop in chickens (OBryan and Jefferson 1991). It would not be until day 9 (minimum) or day 15 (maximum) post infection that the antibody positive blood sample would be draw n. Initial report of suspected positive would not occur until day 16 to 22 post infection and confirmation would follow 23 to 29 days postinfection (DPI) (OBryan and Jefferson 1991). In the 1990 SLEV outbreak in Indian River C ounty, suspected positives were treated as confirmed so a more rapid mosquito control re sponse could be mounted (OBryan and Jefferson 1991). Even with this system, the actual transmi ssion event occurred two to three weeks prior. For WNV, it takes a minimum of seven days fo r HI antibody development (Senne et al. 2000), so suspect cases would be reported within 15 to 21 DPI and confirmed 22 to 28 DPI. For EEEV it takes a minimum of 4 days for HI antibody development (Olson et al. 1991), so suspect cases would be reported within 8 to 14 DPI. However, confirmation with PRNT takes 1 to 2 weeks so it would be 15 to 28 DPI before a confirmed EEEV case was reported. It is important to wait for confirmation of EEEV tests becaus e Highlands J virus is not of public health importance and therefore control measures for HJ virus are not necessary. As with other avian species (Sooter et al 1954) adult hens may transovarialy transmit maternal HI antibodies to SLEV virus (Bond et al. 1965) and NT antibodies to SLEV and WEEV viruses to their offspring (Reeves et al. 1954). Maternal HI anti body levels tend to be lower than HI levels found after mosquito-bor ne arboviral infection (Bond et al. 1965). Chickens less than 15 days old may have detectable maternal antibodies (Day 2001), which would produce

PAGE 49

49 seropositive chickens that were not infected during field exposure. Often times chickens used as bait in lard can traps are less th an one month old (Rutledge et al 2003). Chickens should be bled and tested before field exposure (Day 1989). Chic kens less than nine days of age should not be used for the surveillance of EEEV as they exhi bit high levels of mortality to EEEV infection (Byrne and Robbins 1961). Chickens should be housed in a mosquito proof enclosure before placement in the field (Day 1989). During the Fl orida SLEV outbreak of 1990, the Indian River Mosquito Control District had numerous sentinel chickens seroconvert before placement in the field because of SLEV infection at the IRMCD because chickens were not held in mosquito proof enclosures (OBryan and Jefferson 1991).

PAGE 50

CHAPTER 2 CAGE ESCAPE TRIALS Introduction Sentinel chickens can provide important informati on about arbovirus acti vity in an area, but do not provide information about which mo squito species are transmitting arboviruses. Rainey et al. (1962) implemented a mosquito trap designed to catch mosquitoes as they approach the chickens, before mosquitoes entered the cag e. A recent addition to some sentinel cage designs in Florida is an exit trap (T. P. Brea ud and D. A. Shroyer, personal communication). These exit traps differ from the traps discussed in Rainey et al. (1962) because they capture mosquitoes after they enter the cages, attempt to obtain a blood meal, and try to exit the cage. Exit traps are placed on top (OCMCD and Volusia County Mosquito Control District) or on the sides of cages (Manatee County and Indian Rive r County Mosquito Control Districts). While exit traps provide evidence of the mosquito speci es attracted to sentinel chickens, they may disproportionately represen t the abundance of mosquito species that enter the cages and attempt to feed. This means that there is a potential to miss certain mosquito species that enter sentinel cages and are able to transmit arboviruses, thereby underestimati ng their importance in arbovirus transmission cycles. There is no universal blueprint for the design of the sentinel chicken cages for mosquito control districts. This has led to the creation of many different t ypes of sentinel cages. Sentinel cages have been designed to hold two chickens (King 1983) to thirty chickens (Rainey et al. 1962). Most sentinel chicken cages used in Flor ida hold six chickens (T P. Breaud and D. A. Shroyer, personal communication). An experimental cage was designed in Janua ry, 2005 and built at OCMCD for this study. The experimental cage was designed to capture as many host seeking mosquitoes that come to

PAGE 51

51 feed on the chickens as possible. Mosquitoes were caught in the exit trap or contained within the sentinel cage where the chickens are held. Th e experimental sentinel chicken cage design is similar to that used by OCMCD with a few modifi cations (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Modifications to the original OCMCD sentin el cage include: the additi on of a mesh baffle to funnel mosquitoes into the cage, plastic sheets to preven t chicken feces from contacting the mesh baffle, entry portals to allow personnel access to inside of the cage fo r aspiration, and a reduced inner cage to allow room for personne l to aspirate the cage and as a refuge for mosquitoes. It is important to determine the limitations of any mosquito trap used in surveillance. Prior to field trials, the experimental cage was tested fo r its efficiency at draw ing mosquitoes into the cage and its ability to contain mosquitoes once insi de the cage. To determine the efficiency of the experimental cage the baffle a ngle was altered through a range of angles from 0-60. This was done to determine the baffle angle that maxi mized the number of mo squitoes and mosquito species caught in the cage. The mark-release-recapture technique was used with five species of colonized mosquitoes with CO2 and chickens as the attractant The mark-release-recapture technique is the release of a known number of mos quitoes that have been marked by fluorescent powders (Pylam Products Co., Tempe, AZ) and measuring the rates of mosquito recovery. Materials and Methods Laboratory colonies of Ae. albopictus Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus), An. quadrimaculatus Say, Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. nigripalpus (USDA-CMAVE strains) we re used to determine whether or not they were able to escape from th e experimental cage, and the likelihood that each species was attracted to and entered the cage. Diurnally active species, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were released at 9:30 am and aspirated fr om the cage at 5:00 pm. Nocturnally active species, An. quadrimaculatus Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. nigripalpus were released at sunset and aspirated from the cage at 8:00 am the next morning.

PAGE 52

52 All trials were conducted with in the confines of an outdoor mosquito cage (9.1 m x 18.3 m x 4.9 m gabled to 5.5 m) at the United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Medical Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Gaines ville, FL (USDA-CMAVE). The experimental cage was placed in the center of an outdoor mosquito cage. Al l release trials were conducted within the confines of the outdoor mosquito cage A Hobo data logger (Onset, Bourne, MA), was placed on top of the inner cage to monitor ch anges in temperature, humidity, and light. A Vantage Pro 2 Weather Envoy (Davis, Hayward, CA ), was placed next to experimental cage to monitor wind speed and direction. Rainfall data were obtained from the University of Florida Physics department (UFDP 2005). Mosquito Rearing Aedes aegypti and An. quadrimaculatus eggs were provided weekly by the USDA. Aedes albopictus Cx. nigripalpus and Cx. quinquefasciatus eggs were collected from lab-reared specimens. Five days after Cx. nigripalpus blood feeding, 5 to 7 day old hay infusion was provided for as an oviposition source for gravid adult Cx. nigripalpus females. Four days after Cx. quinquefasciatus blood feeding, distilled well water was provided as an oviposition source for gravid adult Cx. quinquefasciatus females. Four to five egg rafts from either species were immediately placed into plastic containers with di stilled well water. After larvae hatched they were transferred to larval pans with di stilled well water. Eggs from adult Ae. albopictus were collected on moistened brown paper, dried and stored for approxima tely one week in a cool, dry Ziploc (Johnson, Racine, WI) bag. Larvae were reared in plastic pans 50.8 cm x 38.1 cm x 7.6 cm and fed according to the feeding schedule in Table 2-1. Adults were he ld in 41 cm x 41 cm x 46 cm cages and were provided a constant source of 10% sugar water so lution. All mosquitoes were reared at 28 1.0C and 90 4% RH on a 14 : 10, light : dark cycle. Adult females were provided the

PAGE 53

53 opportunity to blood feed on restrained chicke ns obtained by the USDACMAVE. All chickens used for colony feeding were cared for according protocols approved by the University Institutional Animal Care a nd Use Committee (#D469) and were housed at the USDA-CMAVE. Marking Mosquitoes were aspirated from emergence ca ges with a hand-held aspirator (Hausherrs Machine Works, Toms River, N.J.). Except for An. quadrimaculatus mosquitoes were temporarily immobilized with CO2 at a rate of 500 mL/min. Th e high knock-down threshold of colony-reared Anopheles quadrimaculatus to CO2, required them to be chilled for 20 minutes in a refrigerator and then placed on a chill table maintained at 4 C. The number of individuals of each mosquito sp ecies required for each trial were counted placed into cardboard cups with screen lids. Th e inside of the cups were lightly dusted with either red, white, blue, yellow, green, or orange fluorescent marking powder. Each trial and cage were assigned specific colors for that day or night. Mosquitoes used in release trials were six to eighteen days post emergence. A water moistened cotton ball was placed on top of the screen to keep the humidity high. Mosquitoes were given at least half an hour to recover from the cold or CO2 knockdown treatments before being released in tr ials. At the completion of every trial all mosquitoes were aspirated from the experimental cage. Any mosquitoes that were dead inside the cardboard cup were noted as mortality cau sed by the marking process and excluded from statistical analysis. Recovered mosquitoes we re observed under a black light (Adams Apple Distributing LP, Glenview, IL) to determine the trial in which they were released. Chickens White leghorn chickens, 19 to 25 weeks old, were used as the attractant in the experimental cages. Protocols for the care and use of the ch ickens were approved by the UF IACUC, #D996. The chickens were housed behind the Entomo logy and Nematology Department building on

PAGE 54

54 campus, in Gainesville, FL. Chickens housed in this location were exposed to natural populations of mosquitoes prio r to experimental exposure. Experimental Cage Design An outer cage measuring 1.7 m x 1.3 m x 1.2 m (H x W x D) wa s constructed with 2 x 4 and 4 x 4 treated pine lumber and 2.5 cm x 5.1 cm hardware cloth (Figure 2-3). An inner cage measuring 0.7 m x 1 m x 1 m was c onstructed out of 2 x 2 treat ed pine lumber and 1.3 cm x 2.5 cm hardware cloth (Figure 2-4) Chickens were housed in the inner cage. The purpose of the inner cage was to create a double barrier of hardware cloth to prevent predators from entering cage, to allow easy removal of the chickens, pr ovide enough room to maneuver an aspirator, and to provide a refuge for mosquitoes to rest without threat of consumption by chickens. A board measuring 2 x 2 on which chic kens roosted during the night, extended diagonally across the inner cage (Figure 2-4). The inner cage was supported by two 2 x 4 boards spaced 1.9 cm apart, which extended horizont ally across the cage to form the baffle entry slit (Figure 2-3). The inner cage rested on two 5 mm thick plastic sheets. The plastic sheets were cut to the shape of the outer cage and the ba ffle slit. The plastic sheets kept chicken feces from falling on the mesh baffle and prevented mos quitoes from flying underneath the inner cage. Two pieces of 0.5 x 2 treated pine lumber were attached to the bottom of the inner cage to prevent chickens from contacting their feces (Figure 2-4). The inner cage was coated in water sealant to prevent feces and urine from soaking into the wood. A one-gallon water container and feeder were placed in the cage when chickens were present. The outer cage was sealed with 12-count mesh screening. Male Velcro was stapled to the outer cage. Twelve-count mesh screening was attached to the cage by female Velcro. The mesh screening was removed when the cage was not used.

PAGE 55

55 Portals (20 cm x 23 cm) on three sides of th e outer cage functioned as doors that allowed personnel to reach inside the cage. The portals were constructe d with 1.3 cm x 2.5 cm hardware cloth and wire ring clamps. The portals were used to release mosquitoes or to aspirate mosquitoes. The portals were sealed with 12-co unt mesh screening attached to the cage with Velcro. An exit trap was constructed in the center of the sheet metal r oof (Figure 2-5 A.). A five gallon water container was used to construct the exit trap. The water container was cut in half and the top half was permanently attached to a ci rcular, sliding piece of sheet metal. The bottom half of the water container was inverted and rested on the top ha lf of the permanently mounted water container (Figure 2-5 B.). Mosquitoes flying upward into the exit trap were funneled through the neck, out the spout, a nd were potentially contained w ithin the removable portion of the exit trap. Tubular Stockinette (Bioqui p, Rancho Dominguez, CA) was attached to the bottom half of the water contai ner and functioned as a seal to keep mosquitoes in the containment portion of the exit trap. Aspirator An aspirator was designed to remove mosquitoes from the experimental cage (Figure 2-6). A modified Bioquip DC Insect Vac 12 volt as pirator (Rancho Dominguez, CA) provided the suction power. A containment jar was connected to the end of the aspirator. Two meters of 10 mm diameter braided vinyl tubing extended from the top of the containment jar. The braided vinyl tubing was the only part of the aspirator that entered the cage. Mosquitoes were sucked through the braided vinyl tubing a nd held inside the containment jar. Mosquitoes were not damaged by the aspirator. Fluorescent marking powders and important morphological characters used for species identification were not remove d or destroyed during th e aspiration process.

PAGE 56

56 Escape Rates The experimental cage was completely sealed as it would be used in the field with only the baffle slit open (Experiments 2 and 3) or closed (Experiment 1). The cardboard cups that contained one-hundred marked mosquitoes were placed inside the sealed, experimental outer cage, on top of the inner cage. The cardboard cu ps were opened rapidly and the outer cage portal and mesh were sealed before mosquitoes could escape the cage. Three escape experiments were conducted: 1) no attractant with the baffle slit sealed, 2) no attr actant with the baffle slit open, and 3) baited with two restrained chickens with the baffle slit open. Chickens were individually restrained inside mesh laundry bags that were cinched tight and allowed no movement of the chickens. The mesh bag holding the chickens were suspended in the center of the inner cage. Three night time and four day time non-baited, closed slit trials we re conducted. Five night time and seven daytime non-baited, open slit trials were conducted. Eight night time and day time chicken baited, open slit trials were conduc ted. A Mosquito Magnet Pro (American Biophysics, North Kingstown, RI) was operated thr ee meters from the experimental cage. The purpose of the Mosquito Magnet was to attract mosquitoes out of the experimental cage. Any trials with greater than 15% marking mort ality for a species were not included in the means analysis. The mean percent of mosquitoes recovered for each species was calculated. The percent of mosquitoes recovered from the exit trap and cage were calculated for the nonbaited open slit and chicken baited open slit trials. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare the percent of mosquitoes captured in the exit trap and cage for the non-baited, open slit and the chicken baited, open slit experi ments. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test ( P = 0.025) was used to compare the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes recovered in the cage and the exit trap. This was done to determine if blood-fed mosquitoes were more likely to be captured in the exit trap or the cage.

PAGE 57

57 Entry Rates To determine the best baffle angle for trappi ng the greatest number of mosquitoes, markrelease-recapture experiments were conducted using si x different baffle angles (0, 10, 20, 36, 48, and 56). The temporary baffl e angles were created by attach ing fiberglass mesh panels to the baffle slit by Velcro and to the cage legs by thumb push pins. Sewing pins were used to connect the mesh panels. The cage was baited with CO2 (flow rate of 500 mL/min) for six night and day trials. The CO2 tank was placed outside the experime ntal cage and tubing that extended into the middle of the inner cage released the CO2. A different baffle angle (0, 10, 20, 36, 48, and 56) was used for each trial where CO2 was used as bait. There were six night and day trials with three restrained chickens used as ba it and either 0 or 36 baffle a ngles. Two-hundred and fifty female mosquitoes of each species were released at their respective times of activity. Mosquitoes were released outside of the experi mental cage. The number of mosquitoes that were contained in the experimental cage and the ex it trap at the end of each trial were recorded. Cardboard cups that contained marked mosqu itoes of each species were placed against the back wall of the outdoor mosquito cage. The expe rimental cage was then baited with either CO2 or chickens. After the CO2 or the chickens were set in place the mosquitoes were released. Mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage at the termination of each trial. Results Escape Trial Results Mean recovery rates from the nobait, slit closed trials were Cx. nigripalpus 89.4 2.4%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 84.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 91.1% (Figure 2-7), Ae. albopictus 74.1 4.8%, and Ae. aegypti 86.6 2.8% (Figure 2-8). Mean recovery rates from the no-bait, slit open trials were Cx. nigripalpus 74.0 8.4%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 55.3 6.4%, An. quadrimaculatus 80.0 11.5% (Figure 2-7), Ae.

PAGE 58

58 albopictus 65.6 5.8%, and Ae. aegypti 71.1 5.6% (Figure 2-8). Of the mosquitoes recovered, the mean percent recovered from the exit trap were Cx. nigripalpus 43.6 13.3%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 25.2 11.8%, An. quadrimaculatus 33.7 6.1%, Ae. albopictus 4.4 1.4%, and Ae. aegypti 11.4 3.5%. Cage aspiration collections were significantly greater than cage aspiration collections for Cx. quinquefasciatus An. quadrimaculatus Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025). Mean recovery rates from the ch icken baited, slit open trials were Cx. nigripalpus 77.7 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 47.4 10.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 65.8 12.1% (Figure 2-7), Ae. albopictus 58.7 4.6%, and Ae. aegypti 57.0 5.5% (Figure 2-8). Of the mosquitoes recovered the mean percent recovered from the exit trap were Cx. nigripalpus 28.8 9.2%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 23.0 11.7%, An. quadrimaculatus 34.2 12.3%, Ae. albopictus 4.2 0.7%, and Ae. aegypti 3.2 1.0% (Figure 2-9). Cage aspiration collections were significantly greater than exit trap collections for Cx. nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025). The mean percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caugh t in the cage compared to exit trap for the chicken baited, open slit trials were Cx. nigripalpus cage 51.0 16.7% an d exit trap 37.2 10.9%, Cx. quinquefasciatus cage 35.3 12.8% and exit trap 0 0%, An. quadrimaculatus cage 57.8 11.0% and exit trap 7.3 5.7%, Ae. albopictus cage 42.8 8.6% and exit trap 12.5 12.5%, and Ae. aegypti cage 42.6 8.7% and exit trap 0 0%. The percent of blood-fed mosquitoes were significantly higher in the cage than exit trap for Cx. quinquefasciatus An. quadrimaculatus Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025). Cage Entry Results Mean percent recovery rates fo r the 0 baffle trials were Cx. nigripalpus 0.27 0.27%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 0.14 0.14%, An. quadrimaculatus 1.61 0.83%, Ae. albopictus 0.4 0.0%,

PAGE 59

59 and Ae. aegypti 0.4 0.23%. Mean percen t recovery rates for the 36 baffle trials were Cx. nigripalpus 0.14 0.14%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 0.14 0.14%, An. quadrimaculatus 1.34 1.34%, Ae. albopictus 0.13 0.13%, and Ae. aegypti 1.07 0.13%. No mosquitoes were recovered from the exit trap during the cage entry trials. Discussion Trials with mosquito marking mortality grea ter than 15% were associated with older females (>16 days post emergence) and with lowered blood-feeding su ccess in the chicken baited, open slit trials. This behavioral change and increased marking mortality suggested that older (>16 days post emergence), colony-raised mosquitoes may not behave the same as younger mosquitoes (<16 days post emergence). Therefore, trials with mosquito marking mortality greater than 15% were not included in data analysis. The Mosquito Magnet rarely ca ught mosquitoes that were released during trials. The Mosquito Magnet did capture mosquitoes after the trial had ended as determined by analyzing mosquitoes for fluorescent marking powders. The Mosquito Magnet data was not presented because of the low capture rate of escap ed mosquitoes during release trials. The no-bait, closed slit trials represented th e likelihood that mosquito es would be captured in the cage and recovered dur ing the aspiration process. Mean recovery rates for Cx. nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus An. quadrimaculatus and Ae. aegypti ranged from 84.9% to 91.1% (Figures 2-7 and 2-8). Aedes albopictus mean recovery rate was 74.1 4.8% (Figure 28). Aedes albopictus may be more adept at escaping from the cage or avoidi ng aspiration than the other four species. Colony raised Ae. albopictus appeared to be smaller than field caught specimens (personal observation). Numerous Ae. albopictus individuals were caught in the fiberglass mesh screen. It appeared as if the Ae. albopictus may have been trying to twist their

PAGE 60

60 way through the mesh. If colony-raised Ae. albopictus can escape through the mesh, then this might explain the lowered rec overy rates for this species. Mean recovery rates from the non-baited, open s lit trials were less than non-baited, closed slit trials ( Ae. albopictus 8.5%, An. quadrimaculatus 11.5%, Cx. nigripalpus 15.4%, Ae. aegypti 15.5%, and Cx. quinquefasciatus 29.6%) (Figures 2-7 and 2-8). This shows that mosquitoes may escape through the baffle slit. Culex quinquefasciatus appeared to be able to escape the cage through the baffle slit. When there was no bait, lab-raised Cx. quinquefasciatus An. quadrimaculatus Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti were caught in the cage more often than the exit trap (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025). Aedes albopictus was observed to fly freely between the exit trap and cage wh ich shows that the exit trap co llections may not contain all mosquitoes that originally entered the exit trap. Mean recovery rates from the chicken-baited, open slit trials were less than non-baited, open slit trials for Ae. albopictus 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 7.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 13.8%, and Ae. aegypti 14.1% (Figures 2-7 and 2-8). The two re strained chickens were not capable of ingesting mosquitoes, which would have reduced r ecovery rates. Some mosquito species may be more likely to escape the cage after blood-feedin g. The percent mosquitoes blood-fed and the percent captured in the cage compared to the exit trap were significantly higher for Cx. quinquefasciatus Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti These three colony raised species avoided entry into the exit trap wh en blood-fed. No blood-fed Cx. quinquefasciatus or Ae. aegypti were recovered from the exit trap. The percent of mo squitoes captured in the exit trap shows that Ae. albopictus and Ae. aegypti are infrequently captured in the exit trap (Figure 2-9). Culex nigripalpus had the highest percent of blood-fed mosquitoes in the exit trap (37.2 10.9%) and was the only species not to have significantly (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025)

PAGE 61

61 more blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the cage th an the exit trap. These findings show that blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were more likely to be collected in the exit trap than the other four species. These results should be interpreted with caution because colony-raised mosquitoes may behave differently from wild mosquitoes. Th ese results should only be used to show the potential range of differences th at may exist among wild mosquito species with respect to their ability to enter, fly w ithin, and exit the cage. Recovery rates of mosquitoes released in CO2 and chicken baited cage entry trials were poor. Low recovery rates were c ontributed to many factors. It was very dry and hot during the time periods that mosquitoes were released, with maximum daytime temperatures reaching 40.5C on many days. There was only one evening with rainfall (>20 mm). Increased temperatures combined with reduced humidity leve ls may have reduced mosquito flight activity. Within the outdoor mosquito cage there were num erous species of lizards and frogs that may have consumed mosquitoes before they entered th e experimental cage. Gl ue boards were used to reduce lizard populations within the outdoor mosqu ito cage. Directly adjacent to the outdoor mosquito cage were several trees that harbored p opulations of wild birds. Released mosquitoes may have been more attracted to wild birds than the CO2 or chickens inside the experimental cage. Time constraints only allowed a singl e day and night trial to be conducted for CO2 baited cage entry trials which eliminated st atistical analyses of these data. Cage entry trials provided little insight to which baffle angle w ould maximize mosquito catches in the field. An angle of 33 was chosen as the permanent baffle angle for the experimental cage. This angle was chosen b ecause it allowed a gap of 0.4 m from underneath the front and rear edges of the baffle to the ground (Figures 2.2 and 2.4). The gap allowed

PAGE 62

62 mosquitoes flying at ground level to 0.4m above ground level to appr oach the cage from all four sides. The permanent baffle was constructed with 2 x 4 and 2 x 2 treated pine lumber (Figure 2-4). Male Velcro was stapled to the baffle. Twelve-c ount mesh screen was attached to the baffle by female Velcro. Conclusions The experimental cage was capable of containi ng released mosquitoes. Mosquitoes were capable of exiting the cage through the ba ffle slit. Certain species such as Cx. quinquefasciatus Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were more adept at escaping fr om the experimental cage than Cx. nigripalpus and An. quadrimaculatus Culex nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus and An. quadrimaculatus were frequently recovered fr om the exit trap, whereas, Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were infrequently rec overed from the exit trap. Orange County Mosquito Control Division relies only on exit trap co llections to assess mosquito species diversity and abundance of mos quitoes attracted to se ntinel chickens. The experimental cages were used in the field to compare the number of mosquitoes successfully collected in the exit trap to the number of mosquitoes collect ed in the cage (Chapter 6).

PAGE 63

63 Table 2-1. Larval feeding regimen Species Slurry Ingredients Amount Fed Feeding Schedule Cx. quinquefasciatus 1%BLP and 1%BY 20mL daily Cx. nigripalpus 1%BLP and 1%BY 20mL daily Ae. aegypti 3% BLP and 2% BY 50mL every other day Ae. albopictus 3% BLP and 2% BY 50mL every other day An. quadrimaculatus* 1% BLP, 1%BY, 1%HC 50, 25mL first and third day 1% BLP, 1%BY, 1%HC 50 mL fifth and seventh day 1% BLP, 1%BY, 1%HC** dusted fourth and sixth day BLP = bovine liver powder, BY = brewers yeas t, HC = hog chow, fed slurry and powder, ** powder Figure 2-1. Original sentinel chicken cage used by OCMCD

PAGE 64

64 Figure 2-2. Experimental sentinel chicken cage used for research

PAGE 65

65 A B Figure 2-3. Line drawing of experimental cage A) Fr ont view B) Side view

PAGE 66

66 A B Figure 2-4. Line drawing of e xperimental inner cage A) Front view B) Side view

PAGE 67

67 A B Figure 2-5. Sentinel chicken cage exit trap A) Sliding sheet metal with permanently mounted portion of exit trap B) Removabl e exit trap collection device

PAGE 68

68 Figure 2-6. Assembled aspirator

PAGE 69

69 Percent mosquitoes recovered no bait, closed slit no bait, open slit chicken, open slit100 80 60 40 20Cx. nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus An. q uadrimaculatus0 Figure 2-7. Night escape trials percent mosquitoes recovered with no bait, closed slit; no bait, open slit; and chicken bait open slit

PAGE 70

70 Percent mosquitoes recovered no bait, slit closed no bait, slit open chicken, slit open Ae. albopictus Ae. aegypti100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 2-8. Day escape trials percent mo squitoes recovered with no bait, closed slit; no bait, open slit; and chicken bait, open slit

PAGE 71

71 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cx. nigripalpusCx. quinquefasciatusAn. quadrimaculatusAe. albopictusAe. aegyptiPercent mosquitoes recovered cage exit Figure 2-9. Percent mosquitoes recovere d from experimental cage and exit trap with chicken bait and baffle slit open

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 3 SENTINEL CHICKEN DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR Introduction Studies conducted by Edman and others concerning the defensive behaviors of Ciconiiformes against mosquitoes and the influence of these behaviors on Cx. nigripalpus blood feeding success (Edman and Kale 1971, Edman et al. 1972a, Kale et al. 1972, Maxwell and Kale 1977, Webber and Edman 1972). Edman and Kale ( 1971), Edman et al. (1972a), and Kale et al. (1972) showed the blood feeding success by Cx. nigripalpus to be influenced by host defensive behaviors, host age, host species and mosquito density. Ciconiiform bi rds (i.e., Little Blue Heron, Cattle Egret, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis ) actively display host defensive behaviors after sunset (Edman and Kale 1971), whereas the dom estic white leghorn chickens used in this experiment roost at sunset a nd do not display defensive behavi ors until awakening at sunrise (Appleby et al. 2004). These differing patterns in host defensive behavior may influence the blood feeding success of Cx. nigripalpus Edman et al. (1974) used unrestr ained chickens of various ages to look at the blood feeding success of wild Cx. nigripalpus. Three experiments exposed tw o-week old chicks, eight-week old chicks, and adult chic kens to 200 host-seeking Cx. nigripalpus Culex nigripalpus recovery rates and blood feeding success in creased with older chickens. Recovery rates and percent of blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were: two-week old chicks 79% and 24%, eight-week old chickens 84% and 59%, and adult chickens 90% and 78%. Chickens six to eight weeks old were found to be moderately tolerant to Cx. nigripalpus when compared to other species of birds and mammals (Edman et al. 1974). Sentinel chickens used fo r arboviral surveillance in Orange County, FL are a minimum of 12 weeks old when first placed in the field (OCMCD data ). In Orange County sentinel chickens are kept in th e field for approximately one year. Therefore, it is important to

PAGE 73

73 evaluate mosquito interactions wi th chickens at an age representative of sentinel chickens used for arboviral surveillance in Or ange County, FL. For the rese arch presented here, chicken defensive behaviors are defined as any behavior that caus es mortality to mosquitoes or interferes with mosquito blood feeding success. The present study was designed to assess the effects of adult ch ickens (25 to 28 weeks old) defensive behaviors on the recovery rates and blood feeding success of Cx. nigripalpus and Aedes albopictus (Skuse) during their normal flight and activity periods. Exit traps were added to sentinel chicken cages in Or ange County, FL in 2003. These exit traps capture mosquitoes as they fly upward from the cage. Exit traps provid e an assessment of the mosquito species that approach sentinel chickens. In the field, exit traps can only collect mosquitoes that enter the cage, survive chicken defensive behaviors, and ente r the exit trap. Exit trap collections may not accurately quantify the mosquito species attracted to sentinel chickens if chicken defensive behavior adversely impacts the surv ival of host-seeking mosquitoes. The effects of adult sentinel chicken defensive behavior on mosquito recovery rates and the location of recovery within the cage were assessed. This assessment will provide insight into how sentinel chicken defensive behaviors might influence mosquito exit trap collections in the field. Materials and Methods Mosquito Rearing Too few wild Cx. nigripalpus were captured in Orange County to produce enough F1 progeny for the experiments and time constraints lim ited the creation of an entirely new colony. Therefore, a cross mating of colony and wild Cx. nigripalpus were used for the present study. Wild, virgin male Cx. nigripalpus and colony, virgin females were cross mated, as this was proven the most successful ma ting combination by Haeger a nd OMeara (1970). Wild, bloodfed Cx. nigripalpus females were obtained from Ora nge County on May 21, 2006 by using white

PAGE 74

74 leghorn chicken-baited lardcan traps (Bellamy a nd Reeves 1952) and sentinel chicken cage exit traps. Chickens used as bait for field collected Cx. nigripalpus were obtained by OCMCD. Mosquitoes were aspirated from traps, placed in cardboard cups, provi ded a 10% sugar water solution, and transported to Gaines ville. Once in the laboratory, the field-collected mosquitoes were immobilized with chloroform and placed on a chill table maintained at 4C. Chilled mosquitoes were identified to species and all mosquitoes that were not blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus females were discarded. Blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were placed into a 61 cm x 46 cm x 61 cm cage. All adults were provided cotton soaked in 10% sugar water solution. Mosquitoes were maintained at 26.5 2.5C and 90 10% RH in a room exposed to the natural outdoor light cycle. Larvae were fed a 20 mL slurry of 1% bovine liver powder and 1% brewers yeast once per day. Adults were provided blood meals from re strained chickens of va rious breeds (IACUC #D469). Colony and wild Cx. nigripalpus were offered restrained chic kens to blood feed from on the same day. Five days after blood feeding, 5 to 7 day old, hay-infusion in black plastic cups was provided for wild and colony adult, grav id female oviposition. This blood feeding and oviposition schedule synchronized the em ergence of adult colony and wild Cx. nigripalpus Ten hours after emergence, adult mosquitoes were pla ced in a walk-in cooler (Eskimo Panels Inc., Miami, FL) at 4C to temporarily immobilize th em. Immobilized mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage, transported to the chill table, and sorted by sex. Wild Cx. nigripalpus males were placed into a 61 cm x 46 cm x 61 cm cage and wild females were discarded. This was done three times every 10 hours with each cohort. The same method was used to obtain colony females and discard colony males. By removing recently emerged Cx. nigripalpus from the emergence cage every ten hours it was assured that males would no t be able to inseminate colony females since

PAGE 75

75 there is a 12 to 24 hour period required for male genitals to rotate into the proper position for copulation. Colony females were placed into the same 61 cm x 46 cm x 61 cm cage with the wild males. A 40-watt incandescent bulb on a d immer switch was used to create an artificial sunset in the room that would extend dusk, the primary period of mating activity, one hour past sunset. The F1 progeny of this wild x colony cross mated and produced viable offspring. The F2 progeny were used for the experiments reported here. Wild Ae. albopictus and other mosquitoes were aspirate d as they landed on a human host at a field site in Orange C ounty between the hours of 11:00 am and 1:00 pm on May 22, 2005. Mosquitoes were transported to Gainesville in cardboard cups with 10% sugar water solution soaked cotton balls. Mosquitoes were tem porarily immobilized using 500 mL/min of CO2 lightly blown over them. Aedes albopictus were placed into a 41 cm x 41 cm x 46 cm cage and all other mosquito species were discarded. Adult Ae. albopictus were offered restrained chickens of various breeds for blood meal s (IACUC #D469). Eggs were collected on moistened brown paper, dried, and stored for approximately one week in a cool, dry Ziploc bag. Adults were raised on 10% sugar water solution. Mosquitoes were maintained at 28 1C and 90 4% RH on a 14: 10 L: D cycle. Larvae were fed a 50 mL slurry of 3% bovine liver powder and 2% brewers yeast provided every othe r day. The F2 progeny were used for the experiments reported here. Chickens used for routine colony feeding were of various breeds and were obtained by the USDA-CMAVE. All chickens used for col ony feeding were housed at the USDA-CMAVE. Mark-Release-Recapture Studies Mosquitoes were aspirated from emergence ca ges with a hand-held aspirator (Hausherrs Machine Works, Toms River, N.J.). Th ey were temporarily immobilized with CO2 at a rate of 500 mL/min. The exact number of females re quired for each experiment were counted and

PAGE 76

76 placed into cardboard cups with screen lids. The inside of the cups were lightly dusted with red, white, blue, yellow, green, or orange fluorescent powder (Pylam Products Co., Tempe, AZ). Each trial and cage was assigned a specific color fo r that day or night. A water-moistened cotton ball was placed on top of the screen to keep the humidity high. Mosquitoes were given at least 30 minutes to recover from the CO2 before being released in trials The cup was placed on top of the inner experimental cage, the lid rapidly re moved, and the cage portal and mesh sealed. At the completion of the trial all mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage. Any mosquitoes that were dead inside the cup were noted and excluded from statistical analysis. Mosquitoes were observed under black light (Adams Apple Distri buting LP, Glenview, IL) to determine which trial they were released. Mosquito blood-fed status was recorded. Partial blood meals were counted as blood-fed. The location where each mosqu ito was recovered in the cage at the end of each trial was recorded. All st atistical analyses were perfor med using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (Ott and Longnecker 2001). Chickens Chickens used for behavior experiments we re 25 to 28 week old white leghorns obtained by Orange County Mosquito Contro l (OCMCD). All chickens used for experiments were cared for under #D996 University of Florida IACUC protocols and were housed on the University of Florida main campus behind the Entomology and Nematology building in Gainesville, FL. Chickens, housed behind the Entomology and Nematology building, were exposed to natural populations of mosquitoes prio r to experimental exposure. Host Defensive Behavior Chicken behavior was monitored during three di fferent time periods (sunset, sunrise, and 11:00 am). Chickens were observed at distance s of 26.5 m or 12.2 m, dependent on light levels and visibility, with 10 x 42 Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class binoculars. Some behaviors

PAGE 77

77 were also observed at close range (i.e., eye blink and the physical cons umption of mosquitoes) while mosquitoes were aspirated from the sen tinel cages. Host defensive behaviors were observed immediately after the release of Cx. nigripalpus until all the chickens roosted; at sunrise for 30 min with Cx. nigripalpus ; and for 30 min immediat ely after release of Ae. albopictus Chicken behavior was observed for several minutes prior to release of mosquitoes to determine routine maintenance behaviors. Ever y type of maintenance and defensive behavior displayed was recorded. Defensiv e behaviors observed are presen ted in Table 3-3. Descriptive comparisons were made among the types of beha viors displayed in response to the various species of mosquitoes, densities of mosquito es and densities of chickens (Table 3-4). Effect of Host Defensive Behavior Host defensive behavior tr ials were conducted in outdoor cages at the U.S.D.A. C.M.A.V.E. facility in Gainesville, FL be tween July 26 and August 13, 2005. One chicken was placed in each sentinel cage 1 to 2 h before mosquitoes were released. Three-hundred 6 to 14day-old adult Cx. nigripalpus females were released into each cage at sunset. This experiment was replicated four times. Mosquitoes were re covered from the cages at 8:00 am the following morning. Three-hundred 7 to 12-day-old adult Ae. albopictus females were released into each cage at 11:00 am. This experiment was replicated four times. Aedes albopictus females were recovered by aspiration from the cage at 5:00 pm at the end of each trial. For trials with each mosquito species, one cag e contained an unrestrained chicken that was allowed total freedom of movement. The second cag e contained a restrained chicken that was fit snugly into a nylon mesh laundry bag that restri cted any head, wing, or leg movement. Three individual chickens were used for these expe riments. Chickens were rotated between the restrained and unrestrained treatments and be tween cages. Cages containing restrained and

PAGE 78

78 unrestrained chickens were rotated between each tria l to negate differences in the ability of each cage to contain mosquitoes. All statistical analyses were performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (Ott and Longnecker 2001). To evaluate the importance of mosquito a nd vertebrate host density on mosquito blood feeding success one chicken was placed into one of the cages and four chickens were placed into the second cage one or two hours before the mosqu itoes were released. An equal predetermined (100, 500, or 700) number of 6 to 15-day-old adult Cx. nigripalpus females were released into both cages at sunset. Released mosquitoes we re aspirated from both cages at 8:00 am the following morning. Four trials were conducted with each density of mosquito es. Five individual chickens were used for these experiments. Chic kens were rotated so that no chicken was used more than once by itself in the single chicken ca ge at each mosquito density. Cages containing one and four chickens were rotated between each tria l to negate differences in the cages ability to contain mosquitoes. All statistical analyses were performed using W ilcoxon Rank Sum test (Ott and Longnecker 2001). Results Chicken defensive behaviors had no significant effect on the percent of Cx. nigripalpus females recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.05), their blood feeding success (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025), or the location in the cage from which the mosquitoes were recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025). Chicken defensive behaviors were found to si gnificantly lower the blood feeding success of Ae. albopictus females (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test P < 0.025) (Table 3-1); however, these behaviors had no significant effect on the percent of Ae. albopictus recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.05) or the location in the cage from which the mosquitoes were recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025) (Table 3-1).

PAGE 79

79 No significant differences were found between the one and four chicken trials at any mosquito density (100, 500, or 700) for the percent of Cx. nigripalpus recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.05), the percent that were blood-fed (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025); or the location in the cage from which the mo squitoes were recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025). Mosquito blood feeding success in tr ials with one chicken were significantly different between the 100 and 700 mosquito de nsities and between the 100 and 500 mosquito densities (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025). An inverse correlation was observed as Cx. nigripalpus density increased, blood feeding success decreased when one chicken was present (T able 3-2). When one chicken was present the percent of Cx. nigripalpus recovered from the exit trap differed significantly between the 300 and 500 densities and between the 500 and 700 densities (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) with the 500 density being significantly less than the 300 and 700 densities (Table 3-2). Discussion Anderson and Brust (1996) exposed pairs of Japanese Quail ( Coturnix japonica ) to Cx. nigripalpus or Ae. aegypti and video tapped Quail activity be fore and after the release of mosquitoes. They concluded that anti-mosquito behaviors were exaggerations of pre-existing behavioral patterns (Anderson and Brust 1996) This increase of normal body maintenance behaviors in response to mosquito ( Cx. nigripalpus ) biting pressure has also been observed with ciconiiform birds (Webber and Edman 1972). In the current experiments, it appeared that chickens used routine maintenance behaviors as defensive behaviors in response to mosquito biting pressure. Through direct observation it wa s shown that all of the maintenance behaviors displayed in the absence of mosqu itoes were displayed more often in the presence of mosquitoes. The preening and head scratching behavior obser ved in the present study may have been in response to mosquito or louse biting pressure. Menopon gallinae (Linnaeus) (Phthiraptera:

PAGE 80

80 Philopteridae), the shaft louse, was occasio nally found on the chickens used for these experiments. Estimates of louse load were not made in the study but symptoms of heavy infestation (i.e., feather loss and lameness) we re never observed. Whet her preening and head scratching behaviors were in response to mosqu itoes or lice could not be determined. Preening and head scratching, however, occurred more often in the presence of mos quitoes than in their absence. The only defensive behaviors not observe d in the absence of mosquitoes were the wing shrug and head tuck. Wing shrugging behavior was only displayed when four chickens were present at the 700 mosquito densit y, suggesting that it may only be reserved for periods of highly elevated agitation. Several times in the commentary section of Ta ble 3-4 defensive behavi or was described as occurring often in the presence of a particular mosquito species. This means that while the behavior was displayed in the presence of both mosquito species, it was displayed much more frequently in the presence of the mentioned species and therefore is attributed to that species. Aedes albopictus appeared to attempt to blood feed ar ound the face and head regions due to the many defensive behaviors displayed by the chickens su ch as the head rub, head shake, head jerk, head tuck, pecking at the air, and eye blink. Culex nigripalpus appeared to attempt to feed around the legs and feet because the primary respons es elicited from chickens in the presence of this mosquito species were the foot kick/stamp and pecking at the ground and legs. Webber and Edman (1972) observed that Cx. nigripalpus primarily feed around the leg region of ciconiiform birds. Chicken defensive behaviors had a negative influence on the blood feeding success (Wilcoxon rank sum P < 0.025) and caused high mortality of Ae. albopictus (Table 3-1). Similar results were found by Waage and Nondo (1982) in restraint trials with rabbits and Ae. aegypti

PAGE 81

81 Klowden and Lea (1979) found unrestrained rabb its significantly lowered the percent blood feeding success of wild, host seek ing mosquitoes when compared to restrained rabbits. All three of these experiments were conducted during th e photophase period of mosquito host seeking activity and coincided with diurnally active time periods of their hosts. In the experiments reported here, unrestrained chicke ns displayed defensive behavi ors in response to mosquito biting pressure throughout the enti re duration of the trials with Ae. albopictus It could not be determined whether the constant chicken activity wa s due to the time of day or the host feeding behaviors of Ae. albopictus The increased activity of chickens during the daytime, the reduced (80.0 4.1% restrained > 40.1 12.5% unr estrained) recovery rate of Ae. albopictus and significantly (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) lowered blood feeding on unrestrained chickens indicate that unrestrained sentinel chickens in the field may reduce the number of daytime biting mosquitoes that enter the cage and reduce the likelihood of them obtaining a blood meal. Culex nigripalpus trials with restrained and unres trained chickens showed a slight reduction in recovery rates of mosquitoes and no differences in blood feeding success (Table 3-1). These results differ from the restraint trials conducted by Edma n and Kale (1971) with nocturnally active ciconiiform birds and Cx. nigripalpus Unrestrained chic kens displayed very few defensive behaviors when Cx. nigripalpus were released at sunset because chickens roost at sunset and wake at sunrise (Appleby et al. 2004 ). However, unrestrained chickens displayed more defensive behaviors shortly after sunrise th an at sunset. Day and Edman (1984) found that mosquito blood feeding success occurs more often during host seeking periods that overlap with periods of inactivity by hosts. Since both the restrained and the unrestrained chicken were

PAGE 82

82 inactive throughout the night, when Cx. nigripalpus feeds, there were no differences in blood feeding success between the two treatments. Trials in which one chicken was e xposed to increasing densities of Cx. nigripalpus showed a significant negative correla tion (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) between the number of mosquitoes released and the pe rcent that successfully obtained blood meals (Table 3-2). This negative correlation between incr easing density and blood meal suc cess was counterintuitive. If chickens were inactive during the primary host seeking period of Cx. nigripalpus then there should have been no significant difference in bloo d feeding success at the various densities. At the 500 and 700 Cx. nigripalpus densities little defensive be havior activity was displayed by chickens at sunset, but at sunr ise chickens were very active. The bulk of chicken morning activities involved pecki ng at their legs and the ground. It was observed at close range that pecking at the ground was done in an attempt to consume mosquitoes. After Cx. nigripalpus had engorged it would usually travel a short distance to the nearest resting spot. Dozens of blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were found resting on the inner cage where they were accessible to chickens. If chickens peck and consume primarily blood fed mos quitoes resting near them, then the chickens would skew the percent of blood fe d mosquitoes that were recovere d. The heighten ed activity of chickens and pecking behavior in the early morn ing make this the most likely time period during which Cx. nigripalpus were consumed. In field settings, this means that mosquitoes should be aspirated shortly after sunrise to reduce the lik elihood of mosquitoes being consumed by the sentinel chickens. No significant trend was found between blood meal success or recovery rates and mosquito density when four chickens were exposed to varying densities of Cx. nigripalpus Roughly 80% percent of all Cx. nigripalpus that were released were r ecovered. Although there were no

PAGE 83

83 significant differences found when comparing th e recovery rates and blood feeding success between one and four chickens, with four chicke ns there was an increase in the percent of bloodfed mosquitoes recovered at the 500 (45.7%) and 700 (56.7%) mosquito density trials compared with trials containing one chic ken at the 500 (35.8%) and 700 (35.7%) mosquito densities. Chickens in groups of four appe ared more concerned with the pr esence of other chickens than with the presence of mosquitoes. Fewer defens ive behaviors toward mosquitoes were observed in cages containing four chickens than cages co ntaining one chicken. Th e four chickens would peck at each other to assert dominance. Aggr ession toward other chickens likely distracted chickens from the presence of mosquitoes whic h allowed more mosquitoes to obtain blood meals and avoid consumption by chickens. In field set tings, four or more chickens should be exposed in the same cage to increase the survival and num ber of day feeding mosquitoes that obtain blood meals. Exit trap collections were not significantly different between restra ined and unrestrained chicken trials for Cx. nigripalpus or Ae. albopictus (Table 3-1). There were no discernable patterns of exit trap recovery ra tes at different densities of Cx. nigripalpus (Table 3-2). It does not appear that chicken defensiv e behaviors influence the percent of mosquitoes captured in the exit trap. An important point to note is the lower percent of Ae. albopictus (8.1%) recovered in the exit trap during restrained chicken trials compared to the percent of Cx. nigripalpus (41.3%) recovered during similar trials. This difference in the percent of mosqu itoes recovered between Ae. albopictus and Cx. nigripalpus during a time when chickens could not display defensive behaviors, demonstrates that Ae. albopictus is not as likely to be r ecovered in the exit trap as Cx. nigripalpus Exit trap collections from sentinel chic ken cages in the field may not accurately

PAGE 84

84 represent all mosquito species or the abundance of those species that come to feed on the sentinel chickens. The absence, or low abundance of cer tain mosquito species in exit traps collections from sentinel chicken cages does not exclude thes e species from being potential enzootic vectors of viral disease in avian populations. Conclusions Chicken defensive behaviors are maintenance be haviors displayed at greater frequencies in the presence of mosquitoes. Chickens may di splay different defensiv e behaviors depending upon the preference of the mosquito blood feeding site. Sentinel chicken defensive behaviors can influence mosquito recovery rates and the blood feeding success of recovered mosquitoes. Diurnally active mosquitoes were more likely th an nocturnal mosquitoes to be consumed and have reduced blood feeding success. Increasing de nsities of mosquitoes feeding on chickens can influence the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes recovered when one chicken was present. At least four chickens should be exposed at sentinel si tes to reduce the number of mosquitoes that are consumed and increase the number of mosquitoes th at obtain blood. Exit tr ap collections did not appear to be influenced by chicken defensive beha viors. Exit trap collections may not accurately sample all of the mosquito species that are attracted to sentinel chicken surveillance cages.

PAGE 85

85 Table 3-1. Effect of host defe nsive behavior on recovery, blood feed ing success, and location recovered* Percent mosquitoes recovered Percent mosquitoes e ngorged Percent mosquitoes recovered from exit trap Species Restrained Unrestrained Restrained Unrestrained Restrained Unrestrained Cx. nigripalpus 90.2 3.1 77.7 11.0 50.2 7.2 52.7 8.6 41.3 10.3 56.5 3.8 Ae. albopictus 80.0 4.1 40.1 12.5 22.2 3.4a 6.1 1.9b 8.1 1.4 18.9 6.7 Means and standard errors of recovered mosquitoes as a percen t of total mosquitoes released, engorgement and exit trap as a percent of mo squitoes recovered. Table 3-2. Effect of Cx. nigripalpus density on recovery, blood feeding success, and location recovered when one or four chickens were present* Percent mosquitoes recovered Percent mosquitoes e ngorged Percent mosquitoes recovered from exit trap Density One chicken Four chickens One chicke n Four chickens One chicken Four chickens 100 74.2 12.2 80.1 3.6 58.9 4.2a 58.2 5.8 54.2 6.9a,b 43 10.9 300a 77.7 11.0 -52.7 8.6a,b -56.5 3.8a -500 86.3 1.7 76.2 6.9 35.8 4.1b 45.7 8.8 37.8 5.2b 45.2 7.2 700 82.6 3.3 85.6 1.9 35.7 6.2b 56.7 8.5 67.1 3.6a 63.0 2.5 Means and standard errors of recovered mosquitoes as a percen t of total mosquitoes released, engorgement and exit trap as percent of mosquitoes recovered. a Data from unrestrained tr ials presented earlier.

PAGE 86

86 Table 3-3. Behaviors displayed by ch ickens in response to mosquitoes Behavior Description Eye blink An eye was closed and opened rapidly Head jerk Head was moved forward and backward or side to side in a rapid jerking motion Peck The head was moved forward and backward in a pecking manner The behavior was used to p eck at the air, ground or legs Head shake The head was vigorously shaken side to side Head scratch The foot was used to scratch the neck and head region Foot kick/stamp The foot was quickly raised into the air and lowered Wing flap The wings were spread out and retracted in a manner similar to flapping Hind feather ruffle The rear portion of the chicken s hook, ruffling the feathers outward away from the body Preening Chicken used its beak to scratch amongst feathered regions Head rub Chicken rubbed its head against vigorously against its body Head tuck Chicken buried its head beneath its wing for extended for seve ral minutes without preening Wing shrug Chicken lowered its body close to the ground and shrugged its wings upward and kept wings pressed against its body

PAGE 87

87 Table 3-4. Defensive behaviors di splayed by chickens in the presence of mosquitoes with commentary Behavior Comments Eye blink This behavior occurred when Ae. albopictus flew near the chickens face. Head jerk A head jerk was often performed in response to Ae. albopictus presence. Peck Pecking at the air was often performed in response to Ae. albopictus presence. Pecking at the ground or legs was often performed in response to Cx. nigripalpus Head shake This was most often performed in the presence of Ae. albopictus It was probably done in attempt to dislodge a feeding mosquito from the face, head or neck region. Head scratch This behavior may have been performed in response to mosquitoes or to the shaft louse, Menopon gallinae (L.). This behavior was observed mo re frequently in the presence of Ae. albopictus. Foot kick/stamp This behavior was freque ntly displayed at densities of 500 and 700 Cx. nigripalpus. Wing flap This behavior was usually observed when a ch icken repositions itself before going to roost and may not have been in response to mosquito attack. Hind feather ruffle This behavior was performed in response to Ae. albopictus and Cx. nigripalpus Preening This may have been a response to mosquitoes or lice. Preening was performed over all feathered regions of the body and in the presence of both mosquito species. Head rub This behavior was displayed in response to Ae. albopictus in attempt to dislodge mosquitoes from the face and head regions. Head tuck This behavior was displayed only in presence of Ae. albopictus and was likely done to prevent mosquitoes from feeding near face and head regions. Wing shrug This behavior was only observed at the 700 density of Cx. nigripalpus with four chickens present.

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SITES: ARBOVIRUSES/VECTORS/HOSTS Introduction Orange County Mosquito Control Division (OCMCD) conducts arbov irus surveillance with sentinel chickens year round. There are twelve sentinel chicke n sites maintained by OCMCD in Orange County. Two of the twelve sentinel chicken sites were chosen for experimental sentinel chicken surveillance and mosquito collec tion for the pres ent study. The two sites were Tibet-Butler Pres erve (TBP) and Moss Park (MP). Three factors led to the decisi on to conduct field research at TBP and MP. The first factor was frequent seroconversions of sentinel chickens from Oct ober through June. Field studies were conducted from October 12, 2005 to July 4, 2006. Historically, several EEEV and WNV sentinel chicken seroconversions have occurred during October through June in Orange County. The second factor for site selection was higher mosquito species diversity as determined by OCMCD sentinel chicken exit trap collections from 2003 and 2004. Mosquito species diversity ranged from fourteen (Winter Park and Clar cona-Horseman Park) to twenty-nine (Fort Christmas) mosquito species in sentinel chicken exit trap collections (OCM CD data). The third factor for site selection was lower mosquito ab undance as determined by sentinel chicken exit trap collections from 2003 and 2004. Sentinel ch icken exit traps at some locations in Orange County have collected 60,000 (Blanchard Park) Cx. nigripalpus in one night (September 21, 2004; OCMCD data). Lower mosquito abundance in exit traps would reduce the cost of testing mosquitoes for arboviruses for this project. Tibet-Butler Preserve and MP are mana ged by Orange County Parks and Recreation (OCPR). Both parks are located outside of the Orlando metropolitan area. As the human population continues to expand and spread aw ay from Orlando, the parks have become

PAGE 89

89 surrounded by residential areas. While both parks allow the preservation of unique habitats and provide excellent opportunities for human recreati on, they are also reserv oirs for large numbers of birds and mosquitoes which may circulate arboviruses that affect humans. The close association of humans and wildlife at both pa rks calls for in-depth study to understand the ecology of arbovirus transmission at these sites. Understanding ar bovirus transmission cycles at TBP and MP would be beneficial for OCMCD and the Orange County Public Health Department as they attempt to reduce the risk of arbovirus transmission to humans. Orange County is located along the Atlantic Flyway, a major bird migration route along the east coast of the United States (Lord and Ca lisher 1970). The hot a nd moist environment of Orange County provides suitable habitat for migran t birds, transient (birds migrating further south or north that use Florida as a temporary stopover site) bird s, and resident birds. Some birds, such as the Red-winged Blackbird and Wood Stork, have populations that make northcentral Florida their permanent area of residence, while other populations of the same species use this area to overwinte r (Favorite 1960). Site Descriptions Tibet-Butler Preserve The 438 acres known as the TBP is owned by the South Florida Water Management District. Tibet-Butler Preserve is located in the southwest co rner of Orange County along the Tibet-Butler chain of lakes (Figure 4-1). Public activity within the park is limited to daytime use, which reduces the potential for arbovirus transmission to humans by nocturnally active mosquitoes inside park boundaries. Immediatel y to the south of the park are active, dripirrigated orange groves, and undeveloped land (Figur e 4-2). Adjacent to the southwest corner of TBP is residential housing. Adjacent to the east and west of TBP, orange groves have been

PAGE 90

90 converted to high-end housing communities. The preserve abuts Lake Tibet to the northeast. Houses are located along the banks of Lake Tibet. Many habitats are present in TBP including bayhead and cypress swamps, freshwater marsh, scrub, and pine flatwoods. The ba yhead swamp is dominated by loblolly ( Gordonia lasianthus ), red ( Persea borbonia ), and sweet bay ( Magnolia virginiana ) trees and comprises the northwestern portion of the park. The fres hwater marsh is dominated by sawgrass ( Cladium jamaicense ) and waterlily ( Nymphaea odorata ). Numerous aquatic plan t species, such as Water Lettuce ( Psitia stratiotes ), Water Hyacinth ( Eichhornia crassipes ), Maidencane ( Panicum hemitomon ), Cattail ( Typha spp.), Pickerelweed ( Pontederia cordata ), and several sedge species were found in the marsh and lake margins of TBP. These aquatic plant speci es create ideal larval habitat for Cq. perturbans Ma. titillans and Ma. dyari (Morris et al. 1990, Lounibos and Escher 1985, Slaff and Haefner 1985, Callahan and Morris 1987). To the south of Lake Tibet is a cypress dom e where large sections of trees were knocked down by the hurricanes of 2004. Upturned cypress ( Cupressus spp.) tree roots create ideal breeding habitat for mosquitoes, especially Cs. melanura (Foster and Walker 2002). To the southwest of Lake Tibet is an undamaged cypress dom e. In the eastern half of the park, there is a mixed wetland forest with pine ( Pinus spp.) flatwoods, bayhead and cypress swamp communities. Various pine, bay, and cypress tr ees create the forest canopy depending on the ground elevation. Various areas of the east side of the park flood and drain throughout the year which provides temporary and semi-permanent pools of water, ideal habitat for Aedes Psorophora Culex and Anopheles larvae (Foster and Walker 2002, personal observation, OCMCD data). The east side of the park is adjacent to residentia l neighborhoods along the

PAGE 91

91 easternmost edge and Aedes albopictus larvae have been found in c ontainers inside this area (personal observation). The southwest portion of the park is xeric, el evated two to three feet above the swamp, composed of scrub and pine flatwood communities, and an understory dominated by saw palmetto ( Serenoa repens ). The OCMCD sentinel chickens a nd those used in th is investigation, were located in this section of the park near the visitor center. The chicke ns were held in areas cleared as fire breaks. In the southwestern corn er of the park, there wa s a small section of oak hammock dominated by Turkey ( Quercus laevis ), Live ( Quercus viginiana ), and Chapmans ( Quercus chapmanii ) oak. Mosquito larvae were rarely found on this side of the park (OCMCD data). Aedes albopictus have been found in containers ne ar the visitor center (personal observation). Moss Park Moss Park is located in the southeast porti on of Orange County be tween Lakes Hart and Mary Jane which are part of the St. Johns Wa ter Management District (Figure 4-1). The surrounding banks of both Lakes Hart and Mary Jane have reside ntial housing. Moss Park is a peninsula of land with Lake Hart to the west, Lake Mary Jane to the east, and Pickerelweed marsh establishing the southern boundary of the park. Moss Park is predominantly mature Laurel ( Quercus hemisphaerica ) and Live Oak hammocks, and Pi ne trees with the understory managed for human recreational activities. In th e southern half of the park camping is allowed and many visitors take advantage of this through out the year. To the west of Moss Park and south of Lake Hart is Split Oak Preserve. Split Oak Preserve consists of pine flatwoods and oak hammocks interspersed with small ponds. Moss Pa rk and Split Oak Preserve together span 3351 acres (Figure 4-3). There were two locations at MP that experimental sentinel chickens were housed. The original experimental cage location wa s toward the back half of the park near the

PAGE 92

92 pickerel reed marsh (Figure 4-3). After five tr ap nights, the cage had to be removed by request of the park manager. It was relocated in a fe nced off area near the county sentinel chickens. At times during the wet season, Moss Park will flood in various regions along the marsh and lake edges. This periodic flooding create s temporary and semi-permanent pools, ideal habitat for Culex Anopheles Aedes and Psorophora larvae (Foster and Walker 2002, OCMCD data). For the rest of the year larval habitats are restricted to the marsh and shallow edges of Lakes Hart and Mary Jane (OCMCD data, person al observation). Lakes Hart and Mary Jane contain many aquatic plant species includi ng Cattail, Pickerelweed, Arrow arum ( Peltandra virginica ), Maidencane, Water Hyacinth, and numerous sedge species. These plants create ideal larval habitat for Cq. perturbans Ma. titillans and Ma. dyari (Morris et al. 1990, Lounibos and Escher 1985, Slaff and Haefner 1985, Callahan and Morris 1987). Anopheles spp. and Cx. erraticus larvae have been found along the edges of Lake Mary Jane. Several areas of the park are designated as repositories for human re fuse which provides la rval habitats for Ae. albopictus and other container inhabiting mosquitoes. Arboviruses Tibet-Butler Preserve Sentinel chicken surveillance began at TBP in 1995. Eastern equine encephalitis virus transmission at TBP was the highest of the twelve sentinel chicken survei llance sites operated by OCMCD. From 1995 through 2004, the mean annual seroconversion rate (MASR) of sentinel chickens for EEEV at TBP was 33.6% (44/131). Mean annual seroconversion rates for EEEV at the other eleven sites ranged from 0 to 16.5% (43/261) (Table 4-1). In 2002, four of ten seroconversions to EEEV occurred be tween January and March at TBP. St. Louis encephalitis virus tr ansmission at TBP was the seve nth highest of the twelve sentinel chicken surv eillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 1995 through 2004, the MASR

PAGE 93

93 of sentinel chickens for SLEV at TBP was 5.3% (7/131). All SLEV transmission to sentinel chickens occurred in 1996 and 1997. Mean annual seroconversion rates fo r SLEV at the other eleven sites ranged from 0 to 17.4% (8/46) (Table 4-2). West Nile virus transmission at TBP is the si xth highest of the twelve sentinel chicken surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. Fr om 2001 through 2004, the MASR for WNV was 30.8% (20/65). However, WNV wa s not detected by sentinel chic kens in Orange County until 2001, so this data only represents four years of surveillance. Mean a nnual seroconversion rates for WNV at the other eleven sites ranged from 7. 7% (2/26) to 40% (16/40) (Table 4-3). In 2002 and 2003, four of twenty-one and four of tw enty WNV seroconversions occurred between October and December at TBP. Moss Park Sentinel chicken surveillance began at MP in 1991. Eastern equi ne encephalitis virus transmission at MP was the eighth highest of the twelve sentinel chicken surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 1991 through 2004 the MA SR of sentinel chickens for EEEV was 4.5% (5/111). Mean annual sero conversion rates for EEEV at the other eleven sites ranged from 0% to 33.6% (44/131) (Table 4-1). St. Louis encephalitis virus tran smission at MP was the sixth hi ghest of all twelve sentinel chicken surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 1991 through 2004 the MASR of sentinel chickens for SLEV was 7.2% (8/111) with all seroconversions occurring in 1997. Mean annual seroconversion rates for SLEV at the other eleven sites ranged from 0 to 17.4% (8/46) (Table 42). The only SLEV seroconversion between 2001 and 2006 in Orange County occurred at MP in December of 2001. West Nile virus transmission at MP was the s econd highest of all twel ve sentinel chicken surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. Fr om 2001 through 2004 the MASR of sentinel

PAGE 94

94 chickens for WNV was 35.9% (14/39 ). The high level of WNV ac tivity is a threat to people camping at MP. The MASR for MP only represents the first four years of surveillance data which may account for the higher transmission rate Mean ASRs for WNV at the other eleven sites ranged from 7.7% (2/26) to 40.0% (16/40) (Table 4-3). In 2002 and 2003, five of twentyone and two of twenty WNV seroconversions o ccurred between October and December at MP. Vectors of Arboviruses Tibet-Butler Preserve had twenty different sp ecies of mosquitoes captured in exit traps from July 2003 through December 2004. Moss Pa rk had nineteen different species of mosquitoes captured in exit traps from July 2003 through December 2004. Culiseta melanura the primary epizootic vector of EEEV (Scott and Weaver 1989), is frequently captured in light traps at TBP. Culiseta melanura is infrequently captured in light traps at MP. Frequently capture d, potential secondary epizootic or bridge vectors of EEEV at TBP and MP include Ae. albopictus (Scott et al. 1990b, Mitchell et al. 1992), Cq. perturbans (Scott and Weaver 1989), Cx. erraticus (Cupp et al. 2003), An. quadrimaculatus (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997), and Cx. nigripalpus (Nayar 1982) Frequently captured vectors of SLEV at MP and TBP include the primary epidemic vector of SLEV in peninsular Florida, Cx. nigripalpus (Dow et al. 1964) and the potential, secondary vector of SLEV in the Florida panhandle, Cx. quinquefasciatus (Tsai and Mitchell 1989, McCaig et al. 1994). Frequently captured, potential vectors of WNV at TBP include Cx. nigripalpus (Rutledge et al. 2003, Turell et al. 2005), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Turell et al. 2005), Cs melanura (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005), and Ae. albopictus (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005,). Frequently captured, potential vectors of WNV at MP include Cx. nigripalpus (Rutledge et al.

PAGE 95

95 2003, Turell et al. 2005), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Turell et al. 2005), and Ae. albopictus (Turell et al. 2005, Sardelis et al. 2002). Avian Hosts of Arboviruses An amplification host is a vertebrate that circulates an arbovirus titer of sufficient magnitude and duration to infect blood-feed ing vectors (Scott 1988) Minimum infection threshold virus titers required to in fect mosquito vectors of EEEV ( Cs. melanura ) were 103 PFU/mL of blood (Komar et al. 199 9), and for SLEV and WNV were 105 PFU/mL of blood (Sardelis et al. 2001). Almost 100 bird species have been identifie d in Tibet-Butler Pres erve and Moss Park (OCPR data). Of these birds only a few ar e critical for arbovirus amplification. Several potential amplifying hosts for EEEV in TBP and MP are residents in Florida. Resident birds are important amplification hos ts for arboviruses (Crans et al. 1994). The Northern Cardinal ( Cardinalis cardinalis ), Common Grackle ( Quiscalus quiscula ), and Redwinged Blackbird ( Agelaius phoeniceus ) were proven to be effi cient hosts of EEEV in the laboratory (Komar et al. 1999). All three sp ecies are common at TBP and MP and were seropositive for EEEV in Flor ida in 1958 and 1960-1961 (Favorit e 1960, Henderson et al. 1962). Eastern equine encephalitis virus seropositive rate s for the three bird species in Florida were: Northern Cardinal 34% (10/29), Common Grack le 12% (17/143), and Red-winged Blackbird 19% (3/16) (Favorite 1960, Henderson et al. 1962). Virus isolations of EEEV, from species that are common residents at TBP and MP in clude the Common Grackle, Tufted Titmouse ( Baeolophus bicolor ), Northern Mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottos ), and Carolina Wren ( Thryothorus ludovicianus ) (Favorite 1960, Henderson et al 1962, Lord and Calisher 1970). Several serosurveys performed outside of Fl orida have isolated EEEV from the Common yellowthroat ( Geothlypis trichas ) (Howard et al. 2004), Northern cardinal, and White-eyed vireo

PAGE 96

96 ( Vireo griseus ) (Lord and Calisher 1970, Stamm et al 1962, Stamm and Newman 1963). The Common yellowthroat and Northern cardinal are common residents at TBP and MP. The Whiteeyed vireo is a common resident at MP. Overwintering birds may contribute to EEEV enzootic transmission during amplification and maintenance phases. Winter migr ants, such as the American Robin ( Turdus migratorius), may introduce EEEV from northern breeding sites (Stamm and Newman 1963, Lord and Calisher 1970). The American Robin and Swamp Sparrow ( Melospiza georgiana ) were shown to be efficient amplifying hosts of EEEV in th e laboratory (Komar et al. 1999). The American Robin is common at TBP. The American Robi n and Swamp Sparrow are common at MP. The American Robin, American Goldfinch ( Carduelis tristis ), House Wren ( Troglodytes aedon ), and Ruby-crowned Kinglet ( Regulus calendula ) had EEEV isolates from serosurveys conducted outside of Florida (Howard et al. 2004, McLean et al. 1985, Stamm et al. 1962). The American Goldfinch and House Wren are common overwinteri ng residents at TBP. The House Wren and Ruby-crowned Kinglet are common overwintering residents at MP There are resident and overwintering populations of the Eastern Towhee ( Pipilo erythrophthalmus ) and Gray Catbird ( Dumetella carolinensis ) at TBP and MP. Both species are common at TBP and MP. There have been several virus isolations of EEEV from the Eastern Towhee and Gray Catbird (Favorite 1960, Howard et al. 2004, Lord and Calisher 197 0, Stamm and Newman 1963). The Eastern Towhee population was 18% (4/22) seropositiv e for EEEV in Orlando (Favorite 1960). Four common, resident species of TBP and MP, the Blue Jay ( Cyanocitta cristata ), Northern Cardinal, Common Grackle, and Mourning Dove ( Zenaida macroura ) were frequently found seropositive for SLEV in 1990 in Florida (D ay and Stark 1999). St. Louis encephalitis virus rates for the four common, resident birds we re: Blue Jay 20% (9/46), Northern Cardinal

PAGE 97

97 6% (1/18), Common Grackle 7% (9/123), and Mourning Dove 56% (75/135) (Day and Stark 1999). The Blue Jay has been implicated in outbreaks of SLEV (McLean and Bowen 1980). The Common Grackle and Mourning Dove each had two isolations of SLEV in Florida in 1990 (Day and Stark 1999). One SLEV isolate was obtaine d from the Northern Cardinal in Florida in 1989 (Day and Stark 1999). No migrant species at TBP or MP have been implicated in SLEV epidemics or had SLEV isolated from them. Numerous resident species in Florida at TBP are potential amplifying hosts for WNV. The American Crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ), Common Grackle, Blue Jay, Fish Crow ( Corvus ossifragus ), Great Horned Owl ( Bubo virginianus ), and Red-tailed hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis ) were found to be efficient amplifying hosts of WNV in the laborator y (Komar et al. 2003, Nemeth et al. 2006). The American Crow, Common Grackle, Blue Ja y, Fish Crow, Great Horned Owl, and Red-tailed Hawk are common residents at TBP. The American Crow, Common Grackle, Blue Jay, and Fi sh Crow are common residents at MP. The role of the American Crow and Blue Jay in WNV transmissi on may be limited due to the high levels of mortality these species encounter with WNV infec tion (Lord et al. 2006). Fifteen percent (2/13) of Common Grackles were seropo sitive for WNV in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). The Red-winged Blackbird has resident and overwintering populations in Florida and is common at TBP and MP. The Red-winged Blackbird was proven an efficient amplifying host of WNV in the laboratory (Komar et al. 2003). Birds that overwinter in Flor ida may potentially introduce WNV acquired at their northern breeding grounds (Rappole et al. 2000). The American Robin and Mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) were efficient amplification hosts of WNV in th e laboratory (Komar et al. 2003). The American Robin and Mallard are common over wintering birds at TBP. Th e American Robin is a common

PAGE 98

98 overwintering bird at MP. Seven percent (2/ 27) of Mallards were seropositive for WNV in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). Discussion Young nestling House sparrows display fewer defensive behaviors and have elevated viremias for longer durations than adult counterparts (Scott et al. 1990a). Young nestling birds would be more likely to be fed upon by mosquitoes due to their reduced host defensive behaviors compared to their adult counterpa rts (Scott et al. 1990a, Kale et al. 1972). If young birds remain viremic at higher magnitudes and for longer durat ion then the presence of susceptible, young nestlings may facilitate epidemics. In both TBP and MP amplification transmission is most likely facilitated by viremic hatching year resident birds. The highest level of EEEV transmission to sentinel chickens in Orange County was observed at TBP (MASR 33.6%, 44/ 131). The bayhead and cypre ss swamps present at TBP provide ideal breeding habitat for Cs. melanura which is frequently found at TBP (Foster and Walker 2002). In contrast, the ei ghth highest level of EEEV transmi ssion to sentinel chickens in Orange County was observed at MP (MASR 4.5%, 5/111). There are no bayhead or cypress swamps at MP and Culiseta melanura is infrequently captured (OCMCD data). Culex nigripalpus and Cq. perturbans are often caught in sentinel chicken exit traps (OCMCD data) and may be the vectors of EEEV to sentin el chickens at MP in the absence of Cs. melanura The lowered transmission rate of EEEV at MP demonstrates the importance of Cs. melanura presence for the transmission of EEEV. The majority of SLEV activity at both TBP and MP occurred in 1997. Neither site had sentinel chickens present at them during the 1990 SLEV epidemic. In 1997 monthly sentinel chicken seroconversion rates were above MASR s throughout Florida but only nine human cases

PAGE 99

99 were reported and none from Orange County (Day and Stark 1999). Both MP and TBP provide suitable habitat for Cx. nigripalpus and numerous potential amp lifying hosts of SLEV including the Blue Jay, Common Grackle, Northern Ca rdinal, and Mourning Dove. With numerous potential amplifying hosts of SLEV and the prim ary epizootic and epidemic vector of SLEV ( Cx. nigripalpus ) present, both of these sites should be considered potential foci for SLEV amplification during SLEV epidemics. West Nile virus transmission to sentinel ch ickens at MP was the second highest of the twelve sentinel sites in Ora nge County (MASR 35.9%, 14/39). Th e first detection of WNV in Florida was in 2001, so information concerning transmission data, potential amplifying hosts, and potential vectors is limited (Blackmore et al. 2003). The primary implication of amplifying hosts for WNV transmission have been laborator y studies (Komar et al. 2003, Nemeth et al. 2006, Reisen et al. 2005). Serosurveys of potenti al amplifying hosts (Godsey et al. 2005a) and field incrimination of potential vectors of WNV in Florida (Ru tledge et al. 2003) have been limited. Future field studies should elucidate which habitat characte ristics, vectors and amplifying hosts create ideal foci fo r WNV transmission in Florida.

PAGE 100

100 Table 4-1. Seroconversions for EEEV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004 Tibet-Butler Moss Park Turkey Lake Trimble Park Kelly Park Cl arcon a Horseman Bear Creek Blanchard Park Winter Park Landfill Fort Christmas Mosquito Control Years of operation EEEV 10 14 27 8 7 4 13 11 5 3 27 8 EEEV Seroconversions 44 5 43 0 7 0 9 14 0 4 24 2 # chickens used 131 111 261 72 69 33 95 96 46 34 240 52 EEEV MASR 33.6 4.5 16.50 10.10 9.5 14.60 11.8 10 3.8 Rank 1 8 2 10 5 10 7 3 10 4 6 9 Table 4-2. Seroconversions for SLEV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004 Tibet-Butler Moss Park Turkey Lake Trimble Park Kelly Park Cl arcon a Horseman Bear Creek Blanchard Park Winter Park Landfill Fort Christmas Mosquito Control Years of operation SLEV 10 14 27 8 7 4 13 11 5 3 27 8 SLEV Seroconversions 7 8 37 8 2 1 1 9 8 0 19 0 # chickens used 131 111 261 72 69 33 95 96 46 34 240 52 SLEV MASR 5.3 7.2 14.211.12.9 3 1.1 9.4 17.4 0 7.9 0 Rank 7 6 2 3 9 8 10 4 1 11 5 11

PAGE 101

101 Table 4-3. Seroconversions for WNV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004 Tibet-Butler Moss Park Turkey Lake Trimble Park Kelly Park Clarcon a Horseman Bear Creek Blanchard Park Winter Park Landfill Fort Christmas Mosquito Control Years of operation WNV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 WNV Seroconversions 20 14 4 16 17 8 7 5 8 11 17 2 # chickens 65 39 29 40 49 33 35 28 26 34 50 26 WNV MASR 30.8 35.9 13.840 34.724.220 17.930.8 32.4 34 7.7 Rank 6 2 11 1 3 8 9 10 6 5 4 12

PAGE 102

102 Figure 4-1. Orange County water bodies with sentinel sites, TBP and MP

PAGE 103

103 Figure 4-2. Aerial view of TBP with experimental se ntinel chicken cage location

PAGE 104

104 Figure 4-3. Aerial view of MP with the original a nd permanent experimental sen tinel chicken cage locations

PAGE 105

105 CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL ARBOVIRAL SURVEILLANCE IN ORANGE COUNTY, FL Introduction Mosquito species that occur at Tibet Butler and Moss Park (i.e., Cx. nigripalpus Cq. perturbans and Ae. albopictus ) have been incriminated or sugg ested as potential epizootic and bridge vectors of arboviruses to humans and horses. Crans and Schulze (1986) stated that bridge vectors of EEEV vary from region to region. It is important for OCMCD to know the potential bridge and enzootic vectors of arboviruses in the varied habitats of Orange County. To attempt to determine potential vectors of arboviruses (EEEV, SLEV, WNV, and HJ) in Orange County, experimental sent inel chickens were exposed to mosquitoes and other biting Diptera at TBP and MP. Diptera other than mosquitoes, such as Stomoxys calcitrans and Culicoides sp. can mechanically transmit EEEV (C hamberlain 1958, Chamberlain and Sudia 1961). Tabanids and Culicoides spp. have been captured in OC MCD sentinel chicken exit traps (OCMCD data). All Diptera of medical impor tance (Mullen and Durden 2002) captured from the experimental cage were iden tified. If an experimental chicken seroconverted for EEEV, SLEV, WNV, or HJ then all Dipt era of medical importance that we re captured the night of that chickens exposure were tested for arboviruses. Materials and Methods Sentinel Chickens Chickens were obtained by OCMCD from Hill andale Farms on October 4, 2005. Chickens were bled upon arrival to the OCMCD, held in a mosquito-proof cage, and bled again just prior to field exposure to ensure that they were se ronegative. The chickens were cared for according to University of Florida IACUC protocol #D 996 and housed at OCMCD in two mosquito-proof cages.

PAGE 106

106 Mosquito-proof cage dimens ions measured 1.2 m x 2.4 m x 1.7 m (W x L x H). The section that housed the chickens was 0.8 m from the ground. The mosquito-proof cages were constructed out of wood 2 x 4s, wood 4 x 4s, had an aluminum roof, and were enclosed with 1.25 cm x 2.5 cm hardware cloth. A second layer of hardware cloth was attached 15 cm below the bottom of the cage to prevent predators from reaching the chickens. Both mosquito-proof cages were sealed in 12-count fiberglass mesh th at was attached to the cages by Velcro. All spaces between the aluminum roof and the cage were sealed with silicone sealant. In each mosquito-proof cage, four groups of four chicke ns were separated by ha rdware cloth dividers that could be removed. Each section of cages had one 11.3 L water holder and a feeder. The mesh could be removed when the cages needed to be cleaned or chickens needed to be removed. Sixteen chickens were placed in the field at TBP and thirty-two chickens at MP weekly from October 12, 2005 to July 4, 2006. All chicke ns were pre-bled the Monday prior to field placement. Chickens were placed at the site s between 10 am to 2 pm and were collected between sunrise and 8 am the next morning. Mo squitoes were removed from the cage with an aspirator. Generally chickens were placed at TBP on Mondays and at Moss Park on Tuesdays. If the predicted high temperature was not above 10C then chickens were not placed in the field on the Monday/Tuesday schedule, but later in the week when te mperatures were warmer. The alternate schedule decision was made after numerous trials on nights when the temperature did not reach 10C and no mosquitoes entered the cage. A Watchdog Weather Station (Spectrum, Plainfield, IL) was used to measure rainfall, re lative humidity, daylight, temperature, wind speed, and barometric pressure at the sentinel sites. Abiotic data were compiled per hour, by month at each site and monthly means were generated from data collected only on nights of experimental

PAGE 107

107 chicken exposure. Monthly means at both sites were compared by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (WRSt) to determine significant differences. After field exposure, chickens were transporte d to OCMCD and held in the mosquito-proof cages for 14 to 20 days before being bled. Chickens were exposed multiple times throughout the study period with at least one m onth between field exposures. Chic kens were bled again one to two weeks later just prior to placing them in the field again. Approximately 1.5 to 2.5 cc of blood was drawn from the wing vein of each exposed chicken with a 22 gauge Kendall Monoject syringe (Tyco Healthcare group, Mansfield, MA). The blood wa s transferred to 6 mL BD Vacutainer Blood Collection Tubes (BD Vacutainer Franklin Lakes, NJ). The Vacutainer tubes were centrifuged at ~3400 rpm for 10 m to separate the bl ood and serum. Blood and serum samples were shipped via courier to the Department of Health Bureau of Laboratories in Tampa. Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) test was the initial screening test used to determine antibody response to Alphaviruses or Flaviviruses Positive HI samples were tested by IgMcapture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MACELISA) to determine the specific virus. West Nile virus negative birds were re-bled a nd screened by the HI test Samples positive during the second HI test were confirmed and identifi ed as SLEV or WNV by the plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT). Alphaviru s positives were confirmed and identified as EEEV or HJ by PRNT. Mosquitoes Mosquitoes and other Diptera were collected be fore the removal of the chickens from the experimental cage, transported to the OCMCD, killed by freezi ng, and identified to species on a chill table (Bioquip, Rancho Dominguez, CA). Mo squito specimens were sorted into pools of 300 or less and stored in a -80C Ultra low freezer (So-Low Environmental Equipment Company, Cincinnati, OH ). Othe r Diptera were identified to the species level when possible

PAGE 108

108 and pooled. In the event of seroconversion in an y of the experimental chickens, the mosquitoes associated with the positive chicken were to be taken from the freezer and have the legs removed for subsequent testing. The legs would be st ored in pools of 300 or less by species. The mosquito leg pools would be shipped to the Depa rtment of Health Bur eau of Laboratories in Tampa for RT-PCR testing. Results Forty-eight chickens were pl aced in the field for a nine month period from October 12, 2005 to July 5, 2006. At TBP 16 chickens were placed in the field on 34 nights for 136 surveillance nights. At MP a to tal of 32 chickens were placed in the field on 34 nights for 131 surveillance nights. There we re no seroconversions to SLEV WNV, EEEV, or HJ in the experimental chickens. Since there were no seroconversions in experimental chickens, no mosquitoes, or any other Dipt era were submitted for testing. Weather data are presented in tables 5.1 through 5.5. January 2006 was not included because of equipment failure. Wind speed was si gnificantly greater at TBP when compared to MP (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0051). No other abiotic factor was significantly different between the two parks: Rainfall (WRSt, Z = 0.11, P = 0.9161), relative humidity (WRSt, Z = -1.42, P = 0.1563), temperature (WRSt, Z = -0.05, P = 0.9581), and barometric pressure (WRSt, Z = -0.15, P = 0.8748). Discussion In June 2005, before the field experiments, four sentinel chic kens from the OCMCD surveillance program were seropo sitive for EEEV at TBP (OCMCD data). At Moss Park two of the OCMCD sentinel chickens were confir med positive for EEEV, one on May 2, 2005 and one on July 5, 2005. The last two EEEV seropositive chickens in Orange County were sampled on July 25, 2005 from the Landfill and Blanchard Park sites. Between October of 2005 and June of

PAGE 109

109 2006, there were no positive seroconversions for SLEV, WNV, EEEV, or HJ in the sentinel chickens used by Orange County as part of their surveillance program (OCMCD data). Orange County experienced severe drought for several months after the hurricanes (FDACS 2006). The drought contributed to redu ced mosquito abundance in Orange County. The number of mosquitoes in regular collections fell below yearly averages, especially for Cx. nigripalpus in Orange County (Figure 5-1, OCMCD da ta). Orange County Mosquito Control Division captures mosquitoes by stationary light trap every day throughout the year. Traps are collected on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of ever y week and all mosquito es are identified to species. Culex nigripalpus populations during the study period of October 2005 through July of 2006 (solid black line Figure 5-1) were below mo nthly averages compared to the previous two and a half years. Day and Stark (2000) st ated that during extended droughts mosquito populations are low and SLEV transmission is reduced. Abiotic factors at both parks may have reduced Cx. nigripalpus flight activity. Provost (1969) found the flight activity of Cx. nigripalpus was greatly diminished when the temperature drops below 20C. Nightly temperatures were below 20C on most nights from October 2005 through March 2006 (Table 5-3). Provost ( 1973) found mosquito flight activity, and Cx. nigripalpus flight activity (Provost 1969) increases with relative humidity above the 90% level to reach a peak during rain. Relative humidity reached above 90% usually after 1:00 am at TBP and 12:00 pm at MP. Rainfall was limited at bot h sites with only two nights at MP exceeding >30 mm (12/7/05 and 6/28/06). Flight activity of Cx. nigripalpus and other mosquito species may have been limited due to relative humidity not reaching levels greater than 90% and limited rainfall.

PAGE 110

110 Conclusion Reduced populations of mosquitoes, especially Cx. nigripalpus and abiotic factors that suppress mosquito flight activity may have led to the absence of arbovi rus transmission to experimental and sentinel chickens in Orange County from October 2005 to June 2006.

PAGE 111

111 Table 5-1. Rain (mm) TBP MP OCT 2005 0.12 0.53 NOV 2005 0.14 0.01 DEC 2005 0.12 0.84 FEB 2006 0.01 0 MAR 2006 0 0 APR 2006 0.06 0.01 MAY 2006 0.12 0.02 JUN 2006 0.08 0.44 mean 0.08 0.23 Table 5-2. Relative humidity (%) TBP MP OCT 2005 79.11 86.33 NOV 2005 86.37 84.49 DEC 2005 84.71 90.48 FEB 2006 82.60 87.00 MAR 2006 73.76 74.77 APR 2006 74.99 79.47 MAY 2006 70.46 80.81 JUN 2006 80.73 84.20 mean 79.09 83.44 Table 5-3. Temperature (C) TBP MP OCT 2005 16.77 17.54 NOV 2005 17.05 15.36 DEC 2005 12.96 13.55 FEB 2006 12.03 14.38 MAR 2006 15.11 16.56 APR 2006 19.83 18.41 MAY 2006 20.51 20.19 JUN 2006 22.67 22.59 mean 17.12 17.32

PAGE 112

112 Table 5-4. Wind speed (km/h) TBP MP OCT 2005 0.29 0.23 NOV 2005 0.49 0.11 DEC 2005 0.34 0 FEB 2006 0.01 0 MAR 2006 0.26 0.08 APR 2006 0.18 0 MAY 2006 0.21 0.01 JUN 2006 0.45 0 mean 0.28 0.05 Table 5-5. Barometric pressure (mm-Hg) TBP MP OCT 2005 758.0 758.5 NOV 2005 758.0 759.3 DEC 2005 776.9 769.4 FEB 2006 778.7 784.1 MAR 2006 784.2 784.3 APR 2006 784.8 784.6 MAY 2006 774.2 766.9 JUN 2006 778.2 778.9 mean 774.13 773.26

PAGE 113

113 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecMonthTotal number of Cx. nigripalpus captured 2003 2004 2005 Project (10/05 7/06) Figure 5-1. Total number of Culex nigripalpus captured in light traps in Orange County by month (January 2003 to July 2006). The solid black line represents light trap collections that coinci de with the months that experi mental chickens were used (October 12, 2005 to July 5, 2006).

PAGE 114

114 CHAPTER 6 CAGE ANALYSIS Introduction In 2003, sentinel chicken cages used by the OC MCD were modified by adding an exit trap to collect mosquitoes. Exit traps on sentinel ch icken cages are the only means of assessment that OCMCD has to determine the mosquito species th at enter the cages and potentially blood feed on the sentinel chickens. Exit trap collections may not represent all mosquito species that approach or feed on sentinel chickens. Certai n species of mosquitoes may be more likely to enter the exit trap, which biases the exit trap collection results. Culex nigripalpus was the second most frequent species recovered from the exit trap in the chicken-baited, open slit escape trials discussed earlier (Figure 2-9). Culex nigripalpus is the most frequently captured mosquito in exit trap collections in Orange and Indian River Counties (T. P. Breaud and D. A. Shroyer, personal communication). It is im portant to know which mosquito species are likely to enter or avoid entry into the exit trap. There have been no field trials assessing whether the exit trap mosquito catch accurately represents the actual mosquito species composition and abundance of those species that enter th e sentinel cages and attempt to feed on the chickens. It is possible that a mosquito may probe a sentinel chicken without taking a blood meal. Arboviruses may be transferred from the mosquito to the chicken during the initial probe even when no blood meal is taken (Hurlbut 1966). In the experiments perfor med in Orange County, FL and exit trap collections m onitored by OCMCD, mosquito blood-feeding success is the only gauge for assessing whether a mosquito has probed a sentinel chicken. The experimental cage designed for this study was used to determine the ratio of mosquitoes caught within the cage compared with t hose caught in the exit trap. This ratio will be used to estimate the likelihood of a mosquito entering the exit trap after it approaches the

PAGE 115

115 chickens. This information is important to OCMCD to assess how representative the county sentinel chicken exit trap collections are of the mo squitoes that enter the sentinel cage, approach the chickens, and attempt to feed on them. There are anecdotal observations indicating that blood-fed Diptera fly upward (D. L. Kline, personal communication). The comp arison of the percent of bloodfed mosquitoes captured in the cage and the exit trap will assess wh ether or not blood-fed Diptera fly upward. Materials and Methods Mosquitoes were collected from sentinel chic ken cages the morning af ter sentinel chicken exposure, 34 times at both TBP and MP (Chapter 5). Mosquitoes were aspirated from the interior of the cage. The exit trap was removed from the cage. Mosquitoes were killed by freezing, identified to species on a chill table (B ioquip, Rancho Dominguez, CA), sorted into pools, and stored in a -80C Ultra-low freezer (So-Low Environmental Equipment Company, Cincinnati, OH). Data were tabulated by site location, species caught, whethe r the mosquito was caught in the exit trap or the cage, and blood-feeding status. All data were analyzed by PROC GLM in SAS (SAS Institute 2002). Only species that had at least 49 mosquitoes collected at TBP or MP were analyzed. The likelihood that mosquitoes enter the exit trap was assessed by individual species with the Students T-test. Data were transformed by ln (x+1) to normalize the data. Normality was tested by Levenes test for homogeneity of variance. If original or transformed data were not normal, then the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (WRSt) was used. Ratios of the mean number of mosquitoes caught in the cage and in the exit trap were determined. The Students T-test was used to assess the difference in the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes by species, between the cage and exit trap. Data were transformed by ARCSIN

PAGE 116

116 square root. Normality was tested by Levenes te st for homogeneity of variance. If original or transformed data were not normal then th e Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used. When mosquitoes were absent from either the cage or the exit trap on a trap night, the data for that location were not included in analysis. The mean number of blood-fed and non blood-fed mosquitoes captured in the cage and the exit trap were reported. Original and transfor med ln (x+1) data were tested by ANOVA for differences in location and blood-fed status betw een the cage and the exit trap. Means found to be significant ( P = 0.05) by ANOVA, were separated by Fishers LSD test. Normality was tested by Levenes test for homogeneity of variance. If original or transformed data were not normal then the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine differences in the number of bloodfed mosquitoes between the cage and the exit trap. For terms found to be significant ( P = 0.05) by Kruskal-Wallis test, the means were se parated by Dunns Multiple Comparison test. Results Tibet-Butler Preserve Species of mosquitoes that were frequently ca ptured in the experimental cage at TBP were Cq. perturbans (57.6%), Ma. titillans (18.1%), Cx. nigripalpus (11.6%), Cx. quinquefasciatus (4.5%), Cs. melanura (3.2%), and Cx. erraticus (2.5%) (Table 6-1). Th ese six species represent 97.5% of the 3164 mosquitoes caught in the experimental cage at TB P. Other Diptera of medical importance caught in the experimental cage at TBP include Tabanus sp., Silvius sp., and Culicoides hinmani (Table 6-2). At TBP, the number of mosquitoes captured in the cage was significantly greater than the number caught in the exit trap for the following species: Cx. quinquefasciatus (WRSt, Z = 2.03, P = 0.0466), Cx. nigripalpus (WRSt, Z = 3.72, P = 0.0002), Cx. erraticus (WRSt, Z = 1.99, P =

PAGE 117

117 0.0467), Ma. titillans (WRSt, Z = 3.44, P = 0.0006), and all species combined (T-test, t = 14.86, P < 0.0001) (Tables 6-5). At TBP, the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes captured in the exit trap was significantly greater than the cage for the following species: Cq. perturbans (WRSt, Z = 2.39, P = 0.0085), Cx. erraticus (WRSt, Z = 1.86, P = 0.0317), and Ma. titillans (WRSt, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048) (Tables 6-6). At TBP, the percent of all blood-fed species (T-test, t = 12.4, P < 0.0001) captured in the cage was significantly greater than the exit trap (Table 6-6). Mosquito species with significantly different location and blood-fed status at TBP were Cq. perturbans (ANOVA, F = 11.94, P < 0.0001), Cx. quinquefasciatus (ANOVA, F = 3.77, P = 0.0142), Cx. nigipalpus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 40.14, P < 0.0001), Ma. titillans (ANOVA, F = 4.47, P = 0.0060), and all species (ANOVA, F = 13.86, P < 0.0001) (Table 6-7). Moss Park Species of mosquitoes that were frequently ca ptured in the experime ntal cage at MP were Cq. perturbans (44.4%), Cx. erraticus (34.2%), and Cx. nigripalpus (16.1%) (Table 6-3). These three species represent 94.7% of the 304 mosquitoes caught in the experimental cage at MP. Other than mosquitoes, no Diptera of medical im portance were caught in the experimental cage at MP (Table 6-4). At MP, the number of mosquitoes captured in the cage was significantly greater than the number caught in the exit trap for Cx. erraticus (WRSt, Z = 3.20, P = 0.0014) and all species combined (WRSt, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0052) (Table 6-8). At MP, the percent of blood-fed Cx erraticus (WRSt, Z = 2.24, P = 0.0126) and all bloodfed species combined (WRSt, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048) captured in the exit trap was significantly greater than the cage (Table 6-9).

PAGE 118

118 Mosquito species with significantly different location and blood-fed status at MP were Cq. perturbans (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 15.90, P = 0.0012), Cx. erraticus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 25.35, P < 0.0001), Cx. nigripalpus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 28.16, P < 0.0001), and all species (Krusk al-Wallis, Chi-square = 30.81, P < 0.0001) (Table 6-10). Discussion All species captured in the experimental ca ge during this study had been previously captured in OCMCD sentinel chicken exit traps at TBP and MP (OCMCD data). There were no mosquito species that were captured in the exit trap more frequently than the cage at either site. Ratios of mosquitoes caught in the cage compared to the exit trap at TB P ranged from 1.4 : 1 (all species) to 34.3 : 1 ( Cs. melanura ). Ratios of mosquitoes caught in the cage compared to the exit trap at MP ranged from 1.9 : 1 ( Cq. perturbans ) to 8.3 : 1 ( Cx. nigripalpus ). This means that county sentinel chicken exit trap collections represent only a fr action of the mosquitoes that come to feed on the sentinel chickens. At TBP the exit trap comprised 27% (868/3164) of all the mosquitoes collected. At MP the exit trap comp rised 22% (67/300) of the all the mosquitoes collected. Culiseta melanura was infrequently captured in OCMC D exit traps (OCMCD data). The ratio of Cs. melanura captured in the experimental cag e and exit trap (34.3 : 1) at TBP demonstrates that Cs. melanura is not likely to enter the exit tr ap after approaching the sentinel chickens (Table 6-5). Density levels of Cs. melanura have been shown to directly influence enzootic EEEV transmission (Williams et al. 1972). Culex nigripalpus and Cq. perturbans were two of the most frequently captured species in OCMCD sentinel chicken exit coop traps (OCMCD data). Both species are potential bridge vectors of EEEV in Florida (Nayar 1982, Scott and Weaver 1989). Culiseta melanura Cx. nigripalpus and Cq. perturbans have different larval habitats and require different larval control measures. Adult Cs. melanura Cx.

PAGE 119

119 nigripalpus and Cq. perturbans are active at different times of the night (Chapter 7). If Cs. melanura population levels are not adequately assessed by exit coop traps when EEEV seroconversions occur, then it is difficult to sp eculate their involvement in EEEV transmission in Orange County and the proper cont rol strategies may not need to be implemented to limit EEEV transmission. Anopheles crucians Wiedemann was the only species that was infrequently captured from the experimental cage and exit trap collections but was frequently captured in OCMCD sentinel chicken exit traps. Anopheles crucians may have been deterred from flying upward into the cage by the baffle or by the white color of the bottom of the plastic sheets. Culicoides hinmani was captured on two occasions at TBP. It was likely that Culicoides spp. frequently approached and fed on experimental sentinel chickens bu t were not captured in the experimental cage because they are small enough to escape through the mesh screen on the cage. Every time that Culicoides hinmani was collected, it was from the cage. Culicoides spp. can mechanically transmit EEEV (Chamberlain and Sudia 1961). Mechanical transmission of arboviruses (i.e., EEEV) by Culicoides spp. is dependent upon ac tive arbovirus infection produced by biological vectors (Chamberlain and Sudia 1961). Culicoides spp. likely plays only a minimal, supplementary role, if any at all in EEEV, WNV, or SLEV transmission in Florida. Tabanus sp. and Silvius sp. were collected at TBP in the experimental cage and exit trap and the OCMCD exit traps (OCMCD data). No members of the Tabanidae family have been demonstrated to be capable of EEEV, SLEV, or WNV transmission. Othe r Diptera, such as Fannia sp. and Hylemya sp., captured at MP and TBP (Table s 6-2 and 6-4) were most likely attracted to the chicken feces, do not blood-fee d, and play no role in arbovirus transmission.

PAGE 120

120 Several factors may influence the entry of mosq uitoes into the exit trap. Abiotic factors may influence mosquito flight activity once inside the cage. Moonlight may attract mosquitoes upward into the exit trap. Cloud cover can dire ctly affect the amount of moonlight that can illuminate the cage and exit trap. The reflective plas tic material that the exit trap is constructed from may attract mosquitoes to fly up ward into the exit trap, similar to Stomoxys calcitrans attraction to Alsynite traps (Broce 1988). Wind speed inside the cage was reduced by the mesh screen and probably had limited effect on mosquito flight activity. Humidity and temperature may also influence flight activity inside the trap as well. Chicken defe nsive behaviors did not significantly influence exit trap co llections of nocturnal mosquitoes (Chapter 3). It has been anecdotally suggested that blood-f ed Diptera tend to fly upward a nd this may influence exit trap collections. To assess whether or not blood-fed Diptera tend to fly upward, the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught inside the cage were compared to the percent of blood -fed mosquitoes caught inside the exit trap. When all sp ecies of mosquitoes were compar ed, the percent blood-fed in the exit trap was significantly less than the percen t of blood-fed mosquitoes in the cage at TBP (Table 6-6). The percent of blood-fed mosquito es caught in the exit tr ap was significantly greater than the percen t of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the cage for Cq. perturbans Cx. erraticus and Ma. titillans at TBP, Cx. erraticus and all species combined at MP (Table 6-6). It appears that Cq. perturbans Cx. erraticus and Ma. titillans are more likely to fly upward after obtaining a blood meal and become cap tured in the exit trap. The statement that blood-fed Diptera fly upward may be correct fo r certain species but not for all species of mosquitoes.

PAGE 121

121 Mosquitoes captured by the experimental cage we re not tested for arboviruses. Had they been tested, MIRs could be calculated for multiple species of mosquitoes. This would establish MIRs in mosquitoes during a period of no ar bovirus transmission to sentinel chickens. Minimum infection rates have been shown to be higher than transmission rates (Reeves et al. 1961, Rutledge et al. 2003) and this may hold true for mosquitoes captured by the experimental cage. Conclusions All species of mosquitoes captured in the experimental cage have been captured in OCMCD sentinel chicken exit traps in the past at both sites. At TBP the exit trap comprised 27% (868/3164) of all the mosquitoes collected. At MP the exit trap comprised 22% (68/304) of the all the mosquitoes collected. With the exception of Cs. melanura the exit trap provides an accurate assessment of the mosquito species that frequently approach sentinel chickens at TBP and MP. Coquillettidia perturbans Cx. erraticus and Ma. titillans were the most likely mosquitoes to fly upward after obtaining a blood meal and then enter the exit trap.

PAGE 122

122 Table 6-1. Mosquitoes capture d in experimental cage at TBP Species total percent of composition mean per night Ae. albopictus 3 0.09 0.09 An. crucians 32 1.01 0.94 An. quadrimaculatus 1 0.03 0.03 Cq. perturbans 1823 57.62 53.62 Cx. erraticus 79 2.50 2.32 Cx. nigripalpus 367 11.60 10.79 Cx. quinquefasciatus 141 4.46 4.15 Cx. salinarius 5 0.16 0.15 Cs. melanura 102 3.22 3.00 Ma. dyari 36 1.14 1.06 Ma. titillans 571 18.05 16.79 Oc. infirmatus 4 0.13 0.12 total 3164 Table 6-2. Other Diptera capture d in experimental cage at TBP Species Hylemya sp. Fannia sp. Ophyra aenescens Musca domestica Muscina sp. Muscina assimilis Sarcophaga sp. Silvius sp. Piophilidae Ophyra leucostoma Culicoides hinmani Tabanus sp. Muscina stabulans total total 103 43 15111474 13613202 % composition 50.99 21.29 7.435.450.501.983.471.98 0.501.492.970.501.49 mean per night 3.03 1.26 0.440.320.030.120.210.12 0.030.090.180.030.09

PAGE 123

123 Table 6-3. Mosquitoes capture d in experimental cage at MP Species total % of comp mean per night An. crucians 5 1.64 0.15 Cq. perturbans 135 44.41 3.97 Cx. erraticus 104 34.21 3.06 Cx. nigripalpus 49 16.12 1.44 Cx. quinquefasciatus 7 2.30 0.21 Ma. titillans 3 0.99 0.09 Ps. columbiae 1 0.33 0.03 toal 304 Table 6-4. Other Diptera capture d in experimental cage at MP Species Hylemya sp. Fannia sp. Sarcophaga sp. Ophyra leucostoma total total 15 5 6329 % composition 51.72 17.24 20.6910.34 mean per night 0.44 0.15 0.180.09

PAGE 124

124 Table 6-5. Mean number of mosquitoes ca ught in the exit trap and the cage at TBP Species Exit trap Cage df Z/t P Cq. perturbans 20.00 4.41 36.97 7.44 1 Z = 1.45 0.148 Cx. quinquefasciatus 1.28 0.64a 3.13 1.18b 1 Z = 2.03 0.0466 Cx. nigripalpus 2.50 1.74a 8.94 3.90b 1 Z = 3.72 0.0002 Cx. erraticus 0.46 0.29a 2.00 0.86b 1 Z = 1.99 0.0467 Cs. melanura 0.09 0.09 3.09 2.22 1 Z = 1.39 0.0807 Ma. titillans 2.56 2.03a 15.28 11.84b 1 Z = 3.44 0.0006 All species 27.13 5.90a 71.75 18.36b 62 t = 14.86 < 0.0001 Table 6-6. Percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at TBP Species Exit trap Cage df Z/t P Cq. perturbans 89.95 3.34a 71.57 6.21b 1 Z = 2.39 0.0085 Cx. quinquefasciatus 71.39 11.21 64.88 9.28 1 Z = 0.52 0.301 Cx. nigripalpus 90.94 5.31 88.74 3.39 1 Z = 0.77 0.2217 Cx. erraticus 78.89 12.96a 36.57 12.28b 1 Z = 1.86 0.0317 Cs. melanura 100 0 82.8 6.52 ---Ma. titillans 91.36 6.30a 79.19 6.12b 1 Z = 2.59 0.0048 All species 22.16 3.08a 48.61 3.46b 62 t = 12.4 < 0.0001

PAGE 125

125 Table 6-7. Mean number of blood-fed and non blood-fed mosquitoes by location at TBP Exit trap Cage Species non blood-fed blood-fed non bl ood-fed blood-fed df F/Chi sq P Cq. perturbans 2.63 1.19a 17.38 3.90c 9.72 2.76b 27.25 5.76c 99 F = 11.94 < 0.0001 Cx. quinquefasciatus 0.72 0.51a 0.56 0.18a 0.84 0.30a 2.28 0.96b 75 F = 3.77 0.0142 Cx. nigripalpus 0.68 0.48a 1.88 1.27a 1.84 0.78a 7.09 3.19a 3 Chi sq = 37.42 < 0.0001 Cx. erraticus 0.94 0.55 0.28 0.14 1.06 0.46 0.94 0.55 47 F = 2.80 0.0512 Cs. melanura 0 0 0.09 0.09 0.53 0.44 2.56 1.87 3 Chi sq = 5.96 0.1134 Ma. titillans 1.94 1.62a 0.63 0.42a 10.88 9.32b 4.41 2.56b 83 F = 4.47 0.006 All species 6.19 2.58a 20.94 4.38b 25.97 11.12b 45.78 10.70c 123 F = 13.86 < 0.0001

PAGE 126

126 Table 6-8. Mean number of mosquitoes ca ught in the exit trap and the cage at MP Species Exit trap Cage df Z P Cq. perturbans 1.62 0.66 3.03 1.18 1 0.71 0.4797 Cx. nigripalpus 0.17 0.07 1.41 0.53 1 1.81 0.07 Cx. erraticus 0.45 0.35a 3.14 0.95b 1 3.2 0.0014 All species 2.31 0.70a 8.03 1.92b 1 2.8 0.0052 Table 6-9. Percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and cage at MP Species Exit trap Cage df Z P Cq. perturbans 95.20 3.22 85.91 9.16 1 0.61 0.2713 Cx. nigripalpus 100 0 100 0 ---Cx. erraticus 100 0a 65.31 9.66b 1 2.24 0.0126 All species 91.36 6.30a 79.19 6.12b 1 2.59 0.0048

PAGE 127

127 Table 6-10. Mean number of blood-fed a nd non blood-fed mosquitoes by location at MP Exit trap Cage Species non blood-fed blood-fed non blood-fed blood-fed df Chi sq P Cq. perturbans 0.10 0.08a 1.52 0.63a,b 0.14 0.07a 2.90 1.16b 3 15.9 0.0012 Cx. nigripalpus 0 0a 0.17 0.17a 0 0a 1.41 0.53b 3 28.16 < 0.0001 Cx. erraticus 0 0a 0.45 0.35a 0.97 0.34a,b 2.17 0.67b 3 25.35 < 0.0001 All species 0.17 0.10a 2.14 0.67a 1.24 0.34a 6.79 1.73b 3 30.81 < 0.0001

PAGE 128

128 CHAPTER 7 ROTATOR STUDIES Introduction Nighttime ULV adulticide application is an important component of mosquito control in Orange County, FL. An adult mosquito is a ffected by ULV insecticide when the droplet impinges on the mosquito (Mount 1970). Adult mosqu itoes in flight at th e time that adulticides are applied are more likely to contact the ins ecticide (Wright and Knight 1966). To maximize the likelihood that adulticides reach the desired mosquito target, it is necessary to know what times of the night mosquito species are most active (Carroll and Bourg 1977). Many methods have been used in the past to determine periods of mo squito flight activity including truck traps (Carroll and Bourg 1977), timer-equipped light traps (Gladney and Turner 1970), suction traps, monitoring of human biti ng activity (Wright and Knight 1966), and timed collections from resting boxes (Nasci and Edma n 1981). Truck traps and suction traps provide unbiased estimates of mosquito flight act ivity (Bidlingmayer 1966, Carroll and Bourg 1977, Wright and Knight 1966). Timer-e quipped light traps and aspiration of mosquitoes attracted to human hosts provides biased information of flight activity as it pertains to host-seeking (Gladney and Turner 1970, Wright and Knight 1966). Re sting boxes provide biased estimates of nocturnally active mosquitoes that enter resting areas at dawn and exit at dusk (Nasci and Edman 1981). Rotator traps (timer-equipped light trap) a llow multiple collection periods at known times throughout the night. A rota tor trap baited with CO2 and incandescent light will attract primarily host-seeking mosquitoes but will also collect freshly emerged, gravid, and blood-fed mosquitoes. A rotator trap baited with CO2 and incandescent light was used at TBP and MP to determine mosquito host seeking times. This in formation is important for OCMCD to determine when to conduct adulticide spraying at TBP and MP.

PAGE 129

129 Materials and Methods A Collection Bottle Rotator (referred to as a rotator trap for the remainder of the Thesis), model 1512 (John W. Hock, Gainesville, FL) was operated at TBP and MP between November 7, 2005 and July 4, 2006. The rotator trap was oper ated at the same time that the experimental chickens were in the experimental cage. Carbondioxide and incandescent light were used as the attractants. The CO2 was supplied from a 20 lb cylinder (A irgas, Orlando, FL) and regulated by a #1 regulator (Clarke Mosquito C ontrol, Roselle, IL) to provide a flow rate of 500 mL/min. The CDC miniature light trap (model 512 with an air actuated gate system, John W. Hock, Gainesville, FL) attached to th e rotator trap, was modified w ith a 12 V solenoid (Lee Products Ltd., England) so that when the light and fan were turned off CO2 was not released. A 12 V motorcycle battery (Power-Sonic, San Diego, CA) wa s used to power the rotator trap. Collection bottles were removed the morning following opera tion. The mosquitoes we re killed by freezing and then identified to species. Counts were recorded and th e mosquitoes were discarded. Eight timed periods were used for each coll ection night. Between rotations to the next time period, there was a 15 min break. The 15 min br eak allowed mosquito co llection periods to be statistically comparable. Time periods for on/off operation were determ ined as follows: the first collection began 30 min before sunset and the eighth collection ended 30 min after sunrise (Nautical Almanac Office, United States Naval Observatory). Co llection periods 1 to 5 and 8 lasted 75 minutes. The length of the 6th and 7th collection periods varied to coincide with daylength changes that occu r throughout the year. To compensate for these changes, the sixth and seventh collection periods were expanded or reduced to fill the remaining time between th e end of the fifth and beginning of the eighth collection periods (light gray hi ghlighted columns in Table 7-1) Table 7-1 shows all weekly calculated time periods that rotator traps were used. An example of two different nights of

PAGE 130

130 rotator collection periods are hi ghlighted dark gray (rows in Table 7-1) to show the time differences on different collec tion nights. Collection time periods were changed weekly according to the Monday sunrise/sunset times. The variable length of the si xth and seventh collection peri ods make comparison of data between the other six collection pe riods invalid unless transformations of the mosquito collection data were made. The mosquito collection data from periods 6 and 7 were multiplied by the formula 75 min/x min, where x equals the number of minutes that coll ection periods 6 and 7 lasted. Since the value of x changed every week the multiplier value was recalculated each week. The modified data from periods 6 a nd 7 were used for all statistical analyses. Rotator collection data were tabulated by speci es for all collection nights at each park. Any species that comprised at least 2% of the to tal collection counts at ea ch site were analyzed for variation in collection periods throughout the night. All data were analyzed by PROC GLM in SAS (SAS Institute 2002). Original and nor malized (ln (x+1)) data were tested by ANOVA for differences in mean collection periods. Significant ( P = 0.05) periods by ANOVA were separated by Fishers LSD test. Normality was tested by Levenes test for homogeneity of variance. Data that could not be normalized were tested by Kruskal-Wallis test for differences between collection periods. Significant ( P = 0.05) periods by Kruskal-Wallis test were separated by Dunns Multiple Comparison test. Whenever thre e or more sequential collections resulted in no mosquitoes of a particular sp ecies, the data for that mosquito species were not included in statistical analysis. Results Tibet-Butler Preserve Species that comprised greater than 2% of the total mosquitoes caught at TBP were An. crucians (49.47%), Cx. nigripalpus (23.51%), Cq. perturbans (10.87%), Cs. melanura (7.68%),

PAGE 131

131 Cx. quinquefasciatus (2.89%), Cx. erraticus (2.66%), and Ma. titillans (2.00%). These seven species comprised 99.08% (14736/14873) of the total number of mos quitoes caught in the rotator trap at TBP (Table 7-2). Anopheles crucians exhibited significant periods of el evated host-seeking activity from one hour after sunset to the si xth collection period (sometime between 3:00 am and 4:20 am) (ANOVA, F = 4.14, P = 0.0003) (Figure 7-1). Significant pe riods of elevated host-seeking activity for Cq. perturbans occurred one hour after sunset to three and three-quarter hours after sunset (ANOVA, F = 4.74, P < 0.0001) (Figure 7-2). Culex erraticus host-seeking was significantly elevated from half an hour before sunset to three and three-quarter hours after sunset (Kruskall-Wallis, Chi square = 25.2, P = 0.0007) (Figure 7-3). Culex nigripalpus had significant periods of elevated host-seeking ac tivity from one hour afte r sunset to one hour before sunrise (ANOVA, F=13.96, P < 0.0001) (Figure 7-4). Culex quinquefasciatus had significant periods of elevated hos t-seeking activity from one hour after sunset to half an hour after sunrise (Kruskall-Wallis, Chi square = 22.4, P = 0.0022) (Figure 7-5). Culiseta melanura host-seeking activity was significantly elevated from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise (ANOVA, F = 6.55, P < 0.0001) (Figure 7-6). Mansonia titillans did not exhibit significant periods of elevated host-seeking activity (ANOVA, F = 1.48, P = 0.1785) (Figure 7-7). All species combined had significan t periods of elevated host-seeking activity from one hour to six and three-quarters hours after sunset (ANOVA, F = 6.58, P < 0.0001) (Figure 7-8). Moss Park Species that comprised greater than 2% of the total mosquitoes caught at MP were An. crucians (41.96%), Cq. perturbans (35.31%), Cx. erraticus (12.17%), and Cx. nigripalpus (6.81%). The four species comprised 96.25% (23 33/2424) of the total mos quitoes caught in the

PAGE 132

132 rotator trap at MP (Table 7-3) The low numbers of mosquitoes captured at MP prevented the determination of significant pe riods of host-seeking activity for most mosquito species. Neither An. crucians (ANOVA, F = 0.22, P = 0.9813) (Figure 7-1) nor Cq. perturbans (ANOVA, F = 1.72, P = 0.1082) (Figure 7-2) exhibited si gnificant periods of host-seeking activity at MP. There were significant peri ods of elevated host-seeking activity for Cx. erraticus from 30 min before sunset to six and three-quarter h after sunset and agai n at sunrise (KruskalWallis, Chi square = 24.8, P = 0.0008) (Figure 7-3). There were significant periods (KruskalWallis, Chi square = 16.40, P = 0.0220) of elevated host-seeking activity for Cx. nigripalpus ; however, this was not detected by Dunns Multiple Comparison test (Fi gure 7-4). All species combined had significant periods of elevated ho st-seeking activity from sunset to three and three-quarters hours afte r sunset (ANOVA, F = 3.54, P = 0.0013) (Figure 7-5). Discussion Coquillettidia perturbans exhibited crepuscular, early evening elevated host-seeking activity during periods 2 to 3 at TBP. Gladney and Turner (1970) found Cq. perturbans hostseeking activity to be greatest in the early evening, from sunset to approximately three h after sunset. Coquillettidia perturbans frequently feeds on humans and of ten is the cause of mosquito complaint calls in Orange C ounty (Provost 1969, OCMCD data). Culiseta melanura displayed a nocturnal feeding pa ttern with elevated host-seeking activity between periods 2 to 7. Nasci and Ed man (1981) found a similar pattern of nocturnal host-seeking activity with a slight peak of feeding activity one h after sunset. Culex nigripalpus displayed a nocturnal f eeding pattern with elevat ed host-seeking activity between periods 2 to 7 at TBP. Provost (1969) found Cx. nigripalpus host-seeking to be nocturnal with slightly elevated periods of host-seeking activity one h after sunset.

PAGE 133

133 Seventy-five percent of the Ma. titillans at Tibet-Butler Preserve were caught on two nights (11/28/05 and 12/15/05) which skewed th e data and made it impossible to determine significant collection periods. Mansonia titillans frequently feeds on humans and often is the cause of mosquito complaint calls in Orange County (Provost 1969, OCMCD data). Gladney and Turner (1970) found Cx. erraticus host-seeking activity to be greatest in the early evening, from sunset to appr oximately three h after sunset. Culex erraticus was crepuscular with significant peri ods of elevated host-seeking activ ity between periods 1 to 3 at TBP (Figure 7-3). Culex erraticus had significant periods of el evated host-seeking activity between periods 1 to 5 and at period 8 at MP There were no significant differences in temperature, humidity, rainfall, and barometric pressure between TBP and MP (Chapter 5). Differences in wind speed between TBP and MP would not have affected Cx. erraticus flight activity (Chapter 5). The differe nces in host seeking activity of Cx. erraticus between these two sites was attributed to low capture rates of Cx. erraticus at MP. All species combined at TBP displayed cre puscular to mid-eveni ng host-seeking activity with peak host-seeking at periods 2 to 4. All sp ecies combined at MP displayed crepuscular to early-evening host-seeking activity with peak host-seeking at periods 1 to 3. Orange County Mosquito Control Division typica lly begins nightly adulticide spraying at sunset and continues spraying for approximately si x hours. The timing of adulticide application should coincide with the primary pe riod of host-seeking activ ity of the target species. On several occasions two or more species may be the target of adulticide operations. If all targeted species exhibit nocturnal host-seeking pa tterns then adulticide should be applied any time one h after sunset. If the targeted species have mixed host-seeking patterns then adulticide should be applied at a time that is most likely to reach as many species as possible. To maximize the

PAGE 134

134 likelihood of affecting the most mo squito species at TBP, adulticide should be sprayed between one h after sunset to five and a quarter h afte r sunset. To maximize th e likelihood of affecting the most mosquito species at MP, adulticide shou ld be applied from sunset to three and threequarter h after sunset. These data only apply to eight months of collections from November 2005 through June 2006. Further rotator trap data should be coll ected throughout the year for multiple years as species diversity and species abundance may change at different times of the year and differ between years. Conclusions Culiseta melanura Cx. nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus and An. crucians displayed nocturnal host-seeking patterns at TBP. Coquillettidia perturbans Cx. erraticus and all species combined displayed crepuscular host-seeking activ ity at TBP. All species combined displayed crepuscular host-seeking activity at MP. To affect the greatest number of mosquitoes, adulticides should be applied at times when the target mosquito species are host seeking.

PAGE 135

135Table 7-1. Rotator time schedule Sunset Sunrise 1 OFF 2 OFF 3 OFF 4 OFF 5 OFF 6 OFF 7 OFF 8 OFF 11/7/05 5:36 6:42 5:06 6:21 6:36 7:51 8:06 9:21 9:36 10:51 11:06 12:21 12:36 3:02 3:17 5:42 5:57 7:12 11/21/05 5:30 6:52 5:00 6:15 6:30 7:45 8:00 9:15 9:30 10:45 11:00 12:15 12:30 3:04 3:17 5:52 6:07 7:22 11/28/05 5:28 6:58 4:58 6:13 6:28 7:43 7:58 9:13 9:28 10:43 10:58 12:13 12:28 3:06 3:21 5:58 6:13 7:28 12/5/05 5:28 7:03 4:58 6:13 6:28 7:43 7:58 9:13 9:28 10:43 10:58 12:13 12:28 3:08 3:23 6:03 6:18 7:33 12/12/05 5:30 7:08 5:00 6:15 6:30 7:45 8:00 9:15 9:30 10:45 11:00 12:15 12:30 3:12 3:27 6:08 6:23 7:38 12/19/05 5:32 7:13 5:02 6:17 6:32 7:47 8:02 9:17 9:32 10:47 11:02 12:17 12:32 3:15 3:30 6:13 6:28 7:43 1/9/06 5:46 7:19 5:16 6:31 6:46 8:01 8:16 9:31 9:46 11:01 11:16 12:31 12:46 3:25 3:40 6:19 6:34 7:49 1/16/06 5:51 7:19 5:21 6:36 6:51 8:06 8:21 9:36 9:51 11:06 11:21 12:36 12:51 3:28 3:43 6:19 6:34 7:49 1/23/06 5:57 7:17 5:27 6:42 6:57 8:12 8:27 9:42 9:57 11:12 11:27 12:42 12:57 3:30 3:45 6:17 6:32 7:47 1/30/06 6:03 7:15 5:33 6:48 7:03 8:18 8:33 9:48 10:03 11:18 11:33 12:48 1:03 3:32 3:47 6:15 6:30 7:45 2/6/06 6:09 7:11 5:39 6:54 7:09 8:24 8:39 9:54 10:09 11:24 11:39 12:54 1:09 3:33 3:48 6:11 6:26 7:41 2/13/06 6:14 7:05 5:44 6:59 7:14 8:29 8:44 9:59 10:14 11:29 11:44 12:59 1:14 3:32 3:47 6:05 6:20 7:35 2/20/06 6:19 6:59 5:49 7:04 7:19 8:34 8:49 10:04 10:19 11:34 11:49 1:04 1:19 3:32 3:47 5:59 6:14 7:29 2/27/06 6:24 6:53 5:54 7:09 7:24 8:39 8:54 10:09 10:24 11:39 11:54 1:09 1:24 3:32 3:47 5:54 6:08 7:23 3/6/06 6:28 6:45 5:58 7:13 7:28 8:43 8:58 10:13 10:28 11:43 11:58 1:13 1:28 3:29 3:44 5:45 6:00 7:15 3/13/06 6:33 6:38 6:03 7:18 7:33 8:48 9:03 10:18 10:33 11:48 12:03 1:18 1:33 3:28 3:43 5:38 5:53 7:08 3/20/06 6:37 6:30 6:07 7:22 7:37 8:52 9:07 10:22 10:37 11:52 12:07 1:22 1:37 3:26 3:41 5:30 5:45 7:00 3/27/06 6:40 6:22 6:10 7:25 7:40 8:55 9:10 10:25 10:40 11:55 12:10 1:25 1:40 3:24 3:39 5:22 5:37 6:52 4/3/06 7:44 7:13 7:14 8:29 8:44 9:59 10:14 11:29 11:44 12:59 1:14 2:29 2:44 4:21 4:36 6:13 6:28 7:43 4/10/06 7:48 7:06 7:18 8:33 8:48 10:03 10:18 11:33 11:48 1:03 1:18 2:33 2:48 4:20 4:35 6:06 6:21 7:36 4/17/06 7:52 6:58 7:22 8:37 8:52 10:07 10:22 11:37 11:52 1:07 1:22 2:37 2:52 4:18 4:33 5:58 6:13 7:28 4/24/06 7:56 6:51 7:26 8:41 8:56 10:11 10:26 11:41 11:56 1:11 1:26 2:41 2:56 4:16 4:31 5:51 6:06 7:21 5/1/06 8:00 6:45 7:30 8:45 9:00 10:15 10:30 11:45 12:00 1:15 1:30 2:45 3:00 4:15 4:30 5:45 6:00 7:15 5/8/06 8:05 6:39 7:35 8:50 9:05 10:20 10:35 11:50 12:05 1:20 1:35 2:50 3:05 4:15 4:30 5:39 5:54 7:09 5/15/06 8:09 6:35 7:39 8:54 9:09 10:24 10:39 11:54 12:09 1:24 1:39 2:54 3:09 4:15 4:30 5:35 5:50 7:05 5/22/06 8:13 6:31 7:43 8:58 9:13 10:28 10:43 11:58 12:13 1:28 1:43 2:58 3:13 4:15 4:30 5:31 5:46 7:01 5/29/06 8:17 6:29 7:47 9:02 9:17 10:32 10:47 12:02 12:17 1:32 1:47 3:02 3:17 4:16 4:31 5:29 5:44 6:59 6/5/06 8:20 6:27 7:50 9:05 9:20 10:35 10:50 12:05 12:20 1:35 1:50 3:05 3:20 4:16 4:31 5:27 5:42 6:57 6/12/06 8:23 6:27 7:53 9:08 9:23 10:38 10:53 12:08 12:23 1:38 1:53 3:08 3:23 4:18 4:33 5:27 5:42 6:57 6/19/06 8:25 6:28 7:55 9:10 9:25 10:40 10:55 12:10 12:25 1:40 1:55 3:10 3:25 4:19 4:34 5:28 5:43 6:58 6/26/06 8:27 6:29 7:57 9:12 9:27 10:42 10:57 12:12 12:27 1:42 1:57 3:12 3:27 4:18 4:33 5:29 5:44 6:59 7/3/06 8:27 6:32 7:57 9:12 9:27 10:42 10:57 12:12 12:27 1:42 1:57 3:12 3:27 4:22 4:37 5:32 5:47 7:02

PAGE 136

136 Table 7-2. Tibet-Butler Preserve rotator catch totals 11/7/05 to 7/4/06 Species Total % of catch Ae. vexans 1 0.01 An. atropos 7 0.05 An. crucians 7357 49.47 An. quadrimaculatus 22 0.15 Cq. perturbans 1616 10.87 Cx. erraticus 396 2.66 Cx. nigripalpus 3496 23.51 Cx. quinquefasciatus 430 2.89 Cx. restuans 1 0.01 Cx. salinarius 23 0.15 Cs. melanura 1142 7.68 Ma. dyari 38 0.26 Ma. titillans 298 2.00 Oc. atlanticus 30 0.20 Oc. infirmatus 14 0.09 Ps. columbiae 2 0.01 Total mosquitoes 14873

PAGE 137

137 Table 7-3. Moss Park rotator catch totals 11/8/05 to 7/5/06 Species Total % of catch An. atropos 2 0.08 An. crucians 1017 41.96 An. quadrimaculatus 6 0.25 Cq. perturbans 856 35.31 Cx. erraticus 295 12.17 Cx. nigripalpus 165 6.81 Cx. quinquefasciatus 16 0.66 Cs. melanura 41 1.69 Ma. dyari 1 0.04 Ma. titillans 2 0.08 Oc. atlanticus 9 0.37 Oc. infirmatus 10 0.41 Oc. triseriatus 1 0.04 Ps. columbiae 1 0.04 Ps. ferox 1 0.04 Total mosquitoes 2424

PAGE 138

138 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 12345678Rotator collection periodMean An. crucians captured TBP MPa,c d c,d c,d a,d a,d a,e b,e Figure 7-1. Anopheles crucians captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP: TBP df = 231, F = 4.14, P = 0.0003: MP df = 199, F = 0.22, P = 0.9813

PAGE 139

139 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 12345678Rotator collection periodMean Cq. perturbans captured TBP MPa,d b,c b,c c,d c,d,e d,e a,e a Figure 7-2. Coquillettidia perturbans captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP: TBP df = 183, F = 4.74, P < 0.0001: MP df = 167, F = 1.72, P = 0.1082

PAGE 140

140 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 12345678Rotator collection periodMean Cx. erraticus captured TBP MPa,b a a,b b b b b b x x, y y y x x,y x, y x, y Figure 7-3. Culex erraticus captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP: TBP df = 7, Chi square = 25.2, P = 0.0007: MP df = 7, Chi square = 24.8, P = 0.0008

PAGE 141

141 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 12345678Rotator collection periodMean Cx. nigripalpus captured TBP MPa a b b b b b b a a a a a a a a Figure 7-4. Culex nigripalpus captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP: TBP df = 231, F = 13.96, P < 0.0001: MP df = 7, Chi square = 16.4, P = 0.0220

PAGE 142

142 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 12345678Rotator collection periodMean Cx. quinquefasciatus capturedb a a a,b a,b a,ba,b a,b Figure 7-5. Culex quinquefasciatus captured by rotator trap at TBP: TBP df = 7, Chi square = 22.4, P = 0.0022

PAGE 143

143 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 12345678Rotator collection periodMean Cs. melanura captureda a b b bb b b Figure 7-6. Culiseta melanura captured by rotator trap at TBP: TBP df = 231, F = 6.55, P < 0.0001

PAGE 144

144 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 12345678Rotator collection periodMean Ma. titillans captured Figure 7-7. Mansonia titillans captured by rotator trap at TBP: TBP df = 167, F = 1.48, P = 0.1785

PAGE 145

145 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 12345678Rotator collection periodMean mosquitoes captured TBP MPa x x c c,e x,z a,c c,d y,z y ,z y,z y ,z y b a,d,e a,e Figure 7-8. All species captur ed by rotator trap at TBP a nd MP: TBP df = 231, F = 6.58, P < 0.0001: MP df = 199, F = 3.54, P = 0.0013

PAGE 146

146 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS During trials conducted in Gainesville, FL the experimental cage used for arbovirus surveillance wa s found capable of containing mosquitoes. The low recovery rate (47.4 10.9%) of Cx. quinquefasciatus from escape rate trials show that mosquitoes were capable of exiting th e cage through the baffle slit The recovery rates of certain species such as Cx. quinquefasciatus (47.4 10.9%), Ae. aegypti (57.0 5.5%), and Ae. albopictus (58.7 4.6%) show that they were more adept at escaping from the experimental cage. The higher recovery rates of Culex nigripalpus (28.8 9.2%), Cx. quinquefasciatus (23.0 11.7%), and An. quadrimaculatus (34.2 12.3%) from the exit trap compared to Aedes aegypti (3.2 1.0%) and Ae. albopictus (4.2 0.7%) show that some species are captured in the exit trap more frequently than others. Blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus (37.2 10.9%) were freque ntly recovered from the exit trap. Blood-fed An. quadrimaculatus (7.3 5.7%) and Ae. albopictus (12.5 12.5%) were infrequently recovered from the exit trap. Blood-fed Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti were never recovered from the exit trap. Mosquito species, such as An. quadrimaculatus Ae. albopictus Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti were less likely to be captured in the exit trap after they had blood-fed. Chicken defensive behaviors did not reduce the percent recovery or blood-feeding success of nocturnally active Cx. nigripalpus Chicken defensive behaviors significantly reduced the blood-feeding success and redu ced the percent of diurnally active Ae. albopictus recovered from 80% in the restrain ed chicken trials to 40.1% in the unrestrained chicken trials In field setti ngs, sentinel chickens will likely reduce the

PAGE 147

147 blood-feeding success and recovery of diurnal mosquitoes. In field settings, sentinel chickens will not influence blood-feeding su ccess and recovery of nocturnal mosquitoes. There were no arboviruses detected by expe rimental sentinel chickens on 34 nights of exposure from October 12, 2005 through July 4, 2006 at either Tibet-Butler Preserve or Moss Park. No mosquitoes were tested for arboviruses. If mosquitoes were tested for arboviruses then minimum infection rates of mosquitoes could be determined for a known period of time when there was no arbovi rus transmission to sentinel chickens. There were no mosquitoes recovered from th e experimental cage that had not been recovered previously (2003 to 2004) from OCMCD exit traps. Mosquito species frequently captured in the experi mental cage at both sites were Cq. perturbans Cx. nigripalpus and Cx. erraticus Mansonia titillans was captured frequently at TibetButler Preserve. Mosquitoes were more freque ntly captured in the cage than the exit trap at Tibet-Butler Preser ve (T-test, t = 14.86, P < 0.0001) and Moss Park (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0052). Culiseta melanura was infrequently captured in OCMCD exit traps. Culiseta melanura was captured in the experimental cage on four occasions with a cage to exit trap ratio of 34.3: 1. Culiseta melanura is not likely to enter the exit trap after approaching sentinel chickens. Anopheles crucians was frequently captured in OCMCD exit trap collections but was infrequently captured in the experimental cage. Some species were more likely to fly upward and become captured in the exit trap when blood-fed, including Cq. perturbans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.39, P = 0.0085), Cx. erraticus (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 1.86, P = 0.0317), and Ma. titillans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048).

PAGE 148

148 REFERENCES CITED Allen, R., S. K. Taylor, and E. S. Sulkin. 1970. Studies of arthropod-bor ne virus infections in Chiroptera. Am. J. Tr op. Med. Hyg. 19: 851-859. Allison, A. B., D. G. Mead, S. E. J. Gibbs, D. M. Hoffman, and D. E. Stallknecht. 2004. West Nile virus viremia in wild rock pigeons. Emerg. Inf ect. Dis. 10: 2252-2255. Anderson, R. A., and R. A. Brust. 1995. Field evidence for multiple host contacts during blood-feeding by Culex tarsalis Cx restuans and Cx nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 32: 705-710. Anderson, R. A., and R. A. Brust. 1996. Blood feeding success of Aedes aegypti and Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) in relation to de fensive behavior of Japanese quail ( Coturnix japonica ) in the laboratory. J. Vector Ecol. 21: 94-104. Anderson, J. F., T. G. Andreadis, A. J. Main, and D. L. Kline. 2004. Prevalence of West Nile virus in tree canopy-inhabiting Culex pipiens and associated mosquitoes. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 71: 112-119. Apperson, C. S., H. K. Hassan, B. A. Harrison, H. M. Savage, S. E. Aspen, A. Farajollahi, W. Crans, T. J. Daniels, R. C. Falco, M. Benedict, M. Anderson, L. McMillen, and T. R. Unnasch. 2004. Host feeding patterns of establishe d and potential mosquito vectors of West Nile virus in the easter n United States. Vector Born e and Zoonotic Dis. 4: 71-82. Appleby, P. D., J. A. Mench, and B. O. Hughes. 2004. Poultry behavior and welfare. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA. Bellamy, R. E., and W. C. Reeves. 1952. A portable mosquito bait-trap. Mosq. News 12: 256259. Beveroth, T. A., M. P. Ward, R. L. Lampman, A. M. Ringia, and R. J. Novak. 2006. Changes in seroprevalence of West Nile vi rus across Illinois in free-ranging birds from 2001 through 2004. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 74: 174-179. Bidlingmayer, W. L. 1966. Use of the truck trap for eval uating adult mosquito populations. Mosq. News 26: 139-143. Bigler, W. J. 1971. Serologic evidence of Venezuelan eq uine encephalitis vi rus infections in raccoons of South Central Flor ida. J. Wild. Dis. 7: 166-170. Bigler, W. J., and G. L. Hoff. 1975. Arbovirus surveillance in Florid a: Wild vertebrate studies 1965-1974. J. Wild. Dis. 11: 348-356. Bigler, W. J., E. B. Lassing, E. E. Buff, E. C. Prather, E. C. Beck, and G. L. Hoff. 1976. Endemic Eastern equine encephalomyelitis in Florida: A twenty-year analysis, 1955-1974. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 25: 884-890.

PAGE 149

149 Blackmore, C. G. M., L. M. Stark, W. C. Jeter, R. L. Oliveri, R. G. Brooks, L. A. Conti, and S. T. Wiersma. 2003. Surveillance results from the first West Nile virus transmission season in Florida, 2001. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 69: 141-150. Blackmore, J. S., L. C. Lamotte, C. A. Sooter, and P. Holden. 1962. Relationship of Culex tarsalis density to transmission ra tes of WE and SLE viruses. Mosq. News 22: 321-324. Bond, J. O. 1969. St. Louis encephalitis virus infection in man. Florida State Board of Health Monograph "Saint Louis Encepha litis in Florida" 12: 1-29. Bond, J. O., W. C. Ballard, R. E. Markush, and E. R. Alexander. 1963. The 1959 outbreak of St. Louis encephalitis in Flor ida. Florida State Board of Health Monograph "Tampa Bay Area arbovirus investigations" 5: 2-18. Bond, J. O., F. Y. Lewis, W. J. Jennings, and I. E. MacLeod. 1965. Transovarian transmission of hemagglutination inhibition antibody to St. Louis encephalitis virus in chickens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 14: 1085-1089. Bowen, G. S. 1977. Prolonged Western equine encephaliti s viremia in the Texas tortoise ( Gopherus berlandieri ). Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 26: 171-175. Bowen, G. S., and D. B. Francy. 1980. Surveillance, pp. 473-502. In T. P. Monath (ed.), St. Louis Encephalitis. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Broce, A. B. 1988. An improved Alsynite trap for Stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Med. Entomol. 25: 406-409. Brownstein, J. S., T. R. Holford, and D. Fish. 2004. Enhancing West Nile virus surveillance, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10: 1129-1133. Busch, M. P., D. J. Wright, B. Custer, L. H. To bler, S. L. Stramer, S. H. Kleinman, H. E. Prince, C. Bianco, G. Foster, L. R. Petersen, G. Nemo, and S. A. Glynn. 2006. West Nile virus infections projected from blood donor screening data, United States, 2003. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12: 395-402. Byrne, R. J., and M. L. Robbins. 1961. Mortality patterns and antibody response in chicks inoculated with Eastern equine encepha lomyelitis virus. J. Immunol. 86: 13-16. Calisher, C. H., and N. Karabatsos. 1988. Arbovirus serogroups: definition and geographic distribution, pp. 19-57. In T. P. Monath (ed.), The Arboviruses: Epidemiology and Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Calisher, C. H., T. P. Monath, D. J. Muth, J. S. Lazuick, D. W. Trent, D. B. Francy, G. E. Kemp, and F. W. Chandler. 1980. Characterization of Fo rt Morgan virus, an Alphavirus of the Western equine encepha litis virus complex in an unusual ecosystem. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 29: 1428-1440.

PAGE 150

150 Callahan, J. L., and C. D. Morris. 1987. Habitat characteristics of Coquillettidia perturbans in Central Florida. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 3: 176-180. Carroll, M. K., and J. A. Bourg. 1977. The night-time flight activ ity and relative abundance of fifteen species of Louisiana mosquitoes. Mosq. News 37: 661-664. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. Epidemic/Epizootic We st Nile virus in the United States: Guidelines for surveillance, prevention, and control, pp. 80, Fort Collins, CO. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006a. Arboviral encephalitis cases reported in humans, by type, United States, 1964-2005. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/ dvbid/arbor/arbocase.htm Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006b. Mosquito species producing WNV positives by year. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvb id/westnile/mos quitospecies.htm Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006c. Vertebrate ecology. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/ westnile/birdspecies.htm Chamberlain, R. W. 1958. Vector relationships of the arth ropod-borne encephalitides in North America. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 70: 312-319. Chamberlain, R. W. 1980. History of St. Loui s encephalitis, pp. 3-61. In T. P. Monath (ed.), St. Louis encephalitis. American Public Health Association, Washington D.C. Chamberlain, R. W., and W. D. Sudia. 1961. Mechanism of transmission of viruses by mosquitoes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 6: 371-390. Chamberlain, R. W., R. K. Sikes, D. B. Nelson, and W. D. Sudia. 1954. Studies on the North American arthropod-borne encephali tides: VI. Quantitative determinations of virus-vector relationships. Am. J. Hyg. 60: 278-285. Chamberlain, R. W., W. D. Sudia, and J. D. Gillett. 1959. St. Louis encephalitis virus in mosquitoes. Am. J. Hyg. 70: 221-235. Chamberlain, R. W., W. D. Sudia, T. H. Work, P. H. Coleman, V. F. Newhouse, and J. G. Johnston. 1969. Arbovirus studies in South Florida, with emphasis on Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus. Am. J. Epidemiol. 89: 197-210. Cherry, B., S. C. Trock, A. L. Glaser, L. D. Kramer, G. D. Ebel, C. Glaser, and J. R. Miller. 2001. Sentinel chickens as a surveillance tool for West Nile virus in New York City, 2000. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 951: 343-346. Coffey, L. L., A.-S. Carrara, S. Paessler, M. L. Haynie, R. D. Bradley, R. B. Tesh, and S. C. Weaver. 2004. Experimental Everglades viru s infection of Cotton rats ( Sigmodon hispidus ). Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10: 2182-2188.

PAGE 151

151 Crans, W. J. 1986. Failure of chickens to act as sentinel s during an epizootic of Eastern equine encephalitis in Southern New Jersey USA. J. Med. Entomol. 23: 626-629. Crans, W. J., and L. J. McCuiston. 1993. New Jersey's approach to encephalitis prevention. Bull. Soc. Vector Ecol. 18: 45-48. Crans, W. J., and T. L. Schulze. 1986. Evidence incriminating Coquillettidia perturbans (Diptera: Culicidae) as an epizootic vector of Eastern equine encephali tis. I. Isolation of EEEV virus from C. perturbans during an epizootic among horses in New Jersey. Bull. Soc. Vector Ecol. 11: 178-184. Crans, W. J., D. F. Caccamise, and J. R. McNelly. 1994. Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus in relation to the avian community of a coastal cedar swamp. J. Med. Entomol. 31: 711-728. Cully, J. F., J. P. Grieco, and D. Kissel. 1991. Defensive behavior of eastern chipmunks against Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 28: 410-416. Cupp, E. W., K. Klingler, H. K. Hassan, L. M. Viguers, and T. R. Unnasch. 2003. Transmission of Eastern equine encephalomye litis virus in Central Alabama. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 68: 495-500. Darbro, J. M., and L. C. Harrington. 2006. Bird-baited traps for surveillance of West Nile mosquito vectors: Effect of bird species, tr ap height, and mosquito escape rates. J. Med. Entomol. 43: 83-92. Davis, A., M. Bunning, P. Gordy, N. A. Panella, B. J. Blitvich, and R. A. Bowen. 2005. Experimental and natural infection of North Am erican bats with West Nile virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 73: 467-469. Day, J. F. 1989. The use of sentinel chickens for arboviru s surveillance in Florida. J. Fla. Mosq. Control Assoc. 60: 56-62. Day, J. F. 1991. A review of the 1990 St. Louis encephal itis virus epidemic in Indian River County, Florida. N. J. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 78: 32-39. Day, J. F. 2001. Predicting St. Louis encephalitis virus ep idemics: Lessons from recent, and not so recent, outbreaks. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46: 111-138. Day, J. F., and D. B. Carlson. 1985. The importance of autumn rainfall and sentinel flock location to understanding the ep idemiology of St. Louis encepha litis virus in Indian River County, Florida. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1: 305-309. Day, J. F., and G. A. Curtis. 1989. Influence of rainfall on Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) blood-feeding behavior in Indian River County, Fl orida. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 82: 32-37.

PAGE 152

152 Day, J. F., and G. A. Curtis. 1999. Blood feeding and oviposition by Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) before, during, and afte r a widespread St. L ouis encephalitis virus epidemic in Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 36: 176-181. Day, J. F., and J. D. Edman. 1984. Mosquito engorgement on normally defensive hosts depends on host activity patterns. J. Med. Entomol. 21: 732-740. Day, J. F., and J. D. Edman. 1988. Host location, blood-feeding, a nd oviposition behavior of Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae): Their infl uence on St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission in Southern Florida, pp. 1-8. In T. W. Scott and J. Grumstrup-Scott (eds.), Proceedings, Symposium: the Role of Vecto r-Host Interactions in Disease Transmission. National Conference of the Entomological Society of America, 10 December 1985, Hollywood, FL. Miscellaneous Publication 68. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD. Day, J. F., and A. L. Lewis. 1991. An integrated approach to arboviral surveillance in Indian River County, Florida. J. Fla. Mosq. Control Assoc. 62: 46-52. Day, J. F., and A. L. Lewis. 1992. An integrated approach to St Louis encephal itis surveillance in Indian River County, Florida. Fl a. J. Public Health 4: 12-16. Day, J. F., and L. M. Stark. 1996a. Eastern equine encephalitis transmission to emus ( Dromanius novaehollandiae ) in Volusia county, Florid a: 1992 through 1994. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 12: 429-436. Day, J. F., and L. M. Stark. 1996b. Transmission patterns of St. Louis encephalitis and Eastern equine encephalitis viruses in Florid a: 1978-1993. J. Med. Entomol. 33: 132-139. Day, J. F., and L. M. Stark. 1999. Avian serology in a St. Louis encephalitis epicenter before, during, and after a widespread epidemic in s outh Florida, USA. J. Med. Entomol. 36: 614624. Day, J. F., and L. M. Stark. 2000. Frequency of Saint Louis ence phalitis virus in humans from Florida, USA: 1990-1999. J. Med. Entomol. 37: 626-633. Day, J. F., G. A. Curtis, and J. D. Edman. 1990. Rainfall directed oviposition behavior of Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) and its infl uence on St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission in Indian River County, Fl orida. J. Med. Entomol.. 27: 43-50. Day, J. F., L. M. Stark, J-T. Zhang, A. M. Ramsey, and T. W. Scott. 1996. Antibodies to arthropod-borne encephalitis viruses in small mammals from Southern Florida. J. Wild. Dis. 32: 431-436. Day, J. F., E. E. Storrs, L. M. Stark, A. L. Lewis, and S. Williams. 1995. Antibodies to St. Louis encephalitis virus in armadillos from Southern Florida. J. Wild. Dis. 31: 10-14.

PAGE 153

153 Day, J. F., R. Winner, R. E. Parsons, and J. T. Zhang. 1991. Distribution of St. Louis encephalitis viral antibody in se ntinel chickens maintained in Sarasota County, Florida: 1978-1988. J. Med. Entomol. 28: 19-23. Deegan, C. S., J. E. Burns, M. Huguenin, E. Y. Steinhaus, N. A. Panella, S. Beckett, and N. Komar. 2005. Sentinel pigeon surveillance for West Nile virus by using lard-can traps at differing elevations and canopy cover cl asses. J. Med. Entomol. 42: 1039-1044. Dickerman, R., and W. Scherer. 1983. Equine herds as sentinels for Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus activity, Nicar agua 1977. Bull. PAHO 17: 14-18. Dougherty, E., and J. I. Price. 1960. Eastern encephalitis in Wh ite Pekin ducklings on Long Island. Avian Dis. 4: 247-256. Dow, R. P., P. H. Coleman, T. H. Work, and K. E. Meadows. 1964. Isolation of St. Louis encephalitis viruses from mosquitoes in Tamp a Bay Area of Florida dur ing the epidemic of 1962. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 13: 462-468. Dow, R. P., W. C. Reeves, and R. E. Bellamy. 1957. Field tests of avia n host preference of Culex tarsalis Coq. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 6: 294-303. Downing, J. D., and W. J. Crans. 1977. Ehrenberg pigeon trap as a sampler of Culex mosquitoes for St. Louis encephalitis surveillance. Mosq. News 37: 48-53. Downs, W. G., T. H. G. Aitken, and L. Spence. 1959. Eastern equine encephalitis virus isolated from Culex nigripalpus in Trinidad. Science 27: 1671. Edman, J. D. 1971. Host-Feeding Patterns of Florida Mosquitos .1. Aedes Anopheles Coquillettidia Mansonia and Psorophora J. Med. Entomol. 8: 687-695. Edman, J. D. 1974. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes .3. Culex ( Culex ) and Culex ( Neoculex ). J. Med. Entomol. 11: 95-104. Edman, J. D., and H. W. Kale. 1971. Host behavior Its infl uence on feeding success of mosquitoes. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 64: 513-516. Edman, J. D., and D. J. Taylor. 1968. Culex nigripalpus Seasonal shift in bird-mammal feeding ratio in a mosquito vector of human encephalitis. Science 161: 67-68. Edman, J. D., L. A. Webber, and H. W. Kale. 1972a. Effect of mosquito density on interrelationship of host behavior and mosquito feed ing success. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 21: 487491. Edman, J. D., L. A. Webber, and H. W. Kale. 1972b. Host-feeding patterns of Florida mosquitoes. 2. Culiseta J. Med. Entomol. 9: 429-434.

PAGE 154

154 Edman, J. D., L. A. Webber, and A. A. Schmid. 1974. Effect of host defenses on feeding pattern of Culex nigripalpus when offered a choice of blood sources. J. Parasitol.60: 874883. Eidson, M. 2001. "Neon needles" in a haystack. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 951: 38-53. Eidson, M., N. Komar, F. Sorhage, R. L. Nels on, T. Talbot, F. Mostashari, R. G. McLean, and W. N. V. A. M. S. Group. 2001a. Crow deaths as a sentinel surveillance system for West Nile virus in the No rtheastern United States, 1999. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 615-620. Eidson, M., L. D. Kramer, W. Stone, Y. Hagiwar a, K. Schmit, and N. Y. S. W. N. V. A. S. Team. 2001b. Dead bird surveillance as an early warning system for West Nile virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 631-635. Eidson, M., J. Miller, L. D. Kramer, B. Ch erry, Y. Hagiwara, and W. N. V. B. M. A. Group. 2001c. Dead crow densities and human cases of West Nile virus, New York state, 2000. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 662-664. Eidson, M., K. Schmit, Y. Hagiwara, M. Anand, B. P. Backenson, I. Gotham, and L. D. Kramer. 2005. Dead crow density and West Nile virus monitoring, New York. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11: 1370-1375. Eldridge, B. F. 1987. Strategies for surveillance, preventi on, and control of arbovirus diseases in Western North America. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 37: 77-86. Endy, T. P., and A. Nisalak. 2002. Japanese encephalitis virus: Ecology and epidemiology, Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 267: 11-48. Favorite, F. G. 1960. Some evidence of local origin of EEE virus in Florida. Mosq. News 20: 87-92. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2006. Keetch Byram Drought Index (KBDI). http://flame.fl-dof.com/f ire_weather/KBDI/index.html Florida Department of Health. 2005. Surveillance and control of selected arthropod-borne diseases in Florida, pp. 85. Florida Department of Health. 2006a. Arthropod-borne encephalitis. http://www.floridacharts.com/chart s/report.aspx?domain=01&indnumber=0163 Florida Department of Health. 2006b. Weekly data for arbovirus surveillance. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/c ommunity/arboviral/weekly-data.htm Foster, W. A., and E. D. Walker. 2002. Mosquitoes (Culicidae), pp. 203-262. In G. Mullen and L. Durden (eds.), Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Academic Press, Boston, MA. Gard, G. P., J. E. Shorthose, R. P. Weir, S. J. Walsh, and L. F. Melville. 1988. Arboviruses recovered from sentinel livestock in north ern Australia. Vet. Microbiol. 18: 109-118.

PAGE 155

155 Gebhardt, L. P., and D. W. Hill. 1960. Overwintering of Western equine encephalitis virus. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 104: 695-698. Geevarghese, G., B. H. Shaikh, P. G. Jacob, H. R. Bhat, and K. M. Pavri. 1987. Domestic pigs as sentinels to monitor the activity of Ja panese encephalitis and West Nile viruses in Kolar District, Karnataka. I ndian J. Med. Res. 86: 413-418. Gergis, N. N., and S. B. Presser. 1988. Preliminary observations of three avian surveillance systems for St. Louis encephalitis in Los Ange les and Orange Counties, California. Proc. Pap. 56th Annu. Conf. Calif. Mosq. Vect Control Assoc. 56: 54-57. Gladney, W. J., and E. C. Turner. 1970. Mosquito flight activity studies utilizing timerequipped light traps and malaise traps. Mosq. News 30: 75-80. Godsey, M. S., M. S. Blackmore, N. A. Panell a, K. L. Burkhalter, K. L. Gottfried, L. A. Halsey, C. R. Rutledge, S. A. Langevin, R. Gates, K. M. Lamonte, A. J. Lambert, R. S. Lanciotti, C. G. M. Blackmore, T. Loyless, L. Stark, R. L. Oliveri, L. A. Conti, and N. Komar. 2005a. West Nile virus epizootiology in the Southeastern United States, 2001. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 5: 82-89. Godsey, M. S., R. S. Nasci, H. M. Savage, S. E. Aspen, R. King, A. M. Powers, K. L. Burkhalter, L. Colton, D. Charnetzky, S. Lasater, V. Taylor, and C. T. Palmisano. 2005b. West Nile virus-infected mosquitoes, Louisiana, 2002. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11: 1399-1404. Gruwell, J. A., C. L. Fogarty, S. G. Bennett, G. L. Challet, K. S. Vanderpool, M. Jozan, and J. P. Webb. 2000. Role of peridomestic birds in the transmission of St. Louis encephalitis virus in Southern California. J. Wild. Dis. 36: 13-34. Guptill, S. C., K. G. Julian, G. L. Cam pbell, S. D. Price, and A. A. Marfin. 2003. Earlyseason avian deaths from West Nile virus as warnings of human in fection. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9: 483-484. Haeger, J. S., and G. F. OMeara. 1970. Rapid incorporation of wild genotypes of Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) into laboratory-ad apted strains. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63: 1390-1391. Hayes, R. O. 2000. Eastern and Western Encephalitis, pp. 29-57. In J. H. Steele (ed.), CRC Handbook Series in Zoonoses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Hayes, R. O., and A. D. Hess. 1964. Climatological conditions asso ciated with outbreaks of Eastern encephalitis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 13: 851-858. Hayes, C. G., J. B. Daniels, H. K. Maxfield, and R. E. Wheeler. 1964. Field and laboratory studies on Eastern Encephalitis in warm and cold-blooded vertebrates. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 13: 595-606.

PAGE 156

156 Henderson, J. R., N. Karabatsos, A. T. C. Bourke, R. C. Wallis, and R. M. Taylor. 1962. A survey for arthropod-borne viruses in Southcentral Florida. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 11: 800-810. Herbold, J. R., W. P. Heuschele, R. L. Berry, and M. A. Parsons. 1983. Reservoir of St. Louis encephalitis virus in Ohio bats. Am. J. Vet. Res. 44: 1889-1893. Holden, P. 1955. Transmission of Eastern equine encephalomyelitis in ring-necked pheasants. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 88: 607-610. Holden, P., R. O. Hayes, C. J. Mitchell, D. B. Francy, J. S. Lazuick, and T. B. Hughes. 1973. House Sparrows, Passer domesticus (L.), as hosts of arboviruse s in Hale County, Texas. 1. Field studies, 1965-1969. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 22: 244-253. Howard, J. J., J. Oliver, and M. A. Grayson. 2004. Antibody response of wild birds to natural infection with Alphaviruses J. Med. Entomol. 41: 1090-1103. Hurlbut, H. S. 1966. Mosquito salivation and virus transmission. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 15: 989-993. Jacobson, E. R., P. E. Ginn, J. M. Troutman, L. Farina, L. Stark, K. Klenk, K. L. Burkhalter, and N. Komar. 2005. West Nile virus infect ion in farmed American alligators ( Alligator mississippiensis ) in Florida. J. Wild. Dis. 41: 96-106. Jennings, W. L., A. L. Lewis, G. E. Sather, W. McD Hammon, and J. O. Bond. 1968. California encephalitis group viruses in Florid a rabbits: Report of experimental and sentinel studies. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 17: 781-787. Johnson, G. D., M. Eidson, K. Schmitt, A. Ellis, and M. Kulldorff. 2006. Geographic prediction of human onset of West Nile virus using dead crow clusters: An evaluation of year 2002 data in New York Stat e. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163: 171-180. Julian, K. G., M. Eidson, A. M. Kipp, E. Weiss, L. R. Petersen, J. R. Miller, S. R. Hinten, and A. A. Marfin. 2002. Early season crow mortality as a sentinel for West Nile virus disease in humans, Northeastern United St ates. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2: 145-155. Kale, H. W., L. A. Webber, and J. D. Edman. 1972. Effect of behavior and age of individual ciconiiform birds on mosquito feed ing success. Mosq. News 32: 343-350. Karabatsos, N., A. L. Lewis, C. H. Ca lisher, A. R. Hunt, and J. T. Roehrig. 1988. Identification of Highlands J virus from a Florida horse. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 39: 603606. King, W. 1983. The use of sentinel birds for early wa rning of mosquito-borne encephalitis in Delaware in 1981 and 1982. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 70: 137-141. Klenk, K., and N. Komar. 2003. Poor replication of West Nile virus (New York 1999 strain) in three reptilian and one amphibian sp ecies. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 69: 260-262.

PAGE 157

157 Klenk, K., J. Snow, K. Morgan, R. A. Bowen, M. Stephens, F. Foster, P. Gordy, S. Beckett, N. Komar, D. J. Gubler, and M. Bunning. 2004. Alligators as West Nile virus amplifiers. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10: 2150-2155. Klowden, M. J., and A. O. Lea. 1979. Effect of defensive host beha vior on the blood meal size and feeding success of natural populations of mosquitoes (D iptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 15: 514-517. Komar, N. 2001. West Nile virus surveilla nce using sentinel birds. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 251: 58-73. Komar, N., and A. Spielman. 1995. Japanese quail as sentinels for Eastern encephalitis virus. N. J. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 82: 32-36. Komar, N., D. J. Dohm, M. J. Turell, and A. Spielman. 1999. Eastern equine encephalitis virus in birds: Relative comp etence of European starlings ( Sturnis vulgaris ). Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 60: 387-391. Komar, N., S. A. Langevin, S. R. Hinten, N. Nemeth, E. Edwards, D. Hettler, B. Davis, R. A. Bowen, and M. Bunning. 2003. Experimental infection of North American birds with the New York 1999 strain of West Nile virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9: 311-322. Komar, N., N. A. Panella, J. E. Burns, S. W. Dusza, T. M. Mascarenhas, and T. O. Talbot. 2001. Serologic evidence for West Nile virus infection in birds in the New York City vicinity during an outbreak in 1999. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 621-625. LaMotte, L. C., G. T. Crane, R. B. Shriner, and L. J. Kirk. 1967. Use of adult chickens as arbovirus sentinels. I. Viremia and persistenc e of antibody in experimentally inoculated adult chickens. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 16: 348-356. Langevin, S. A., M. Bunning, B. Davis, and N. Komar. 2001. Experimental infection of chickens as candidate sentinels for West Nile virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 726-729. Lord, C. C., C. R. Rutledge, and W. J. Tabachnick. 2006. Relationship between host viremia and vector susceptibility for arbovi ruses. J. Med. Entomol. 43: 623-630. Lord, R. D., and C. H. Calisher. 1970. Further evidence of southw ard transport of arboviruses by migratory birds. Am. J. Epidemiol. 92: 73-78. Lounibos, P. L., and R. L. Escher. 1985. Mosquitoes associated with water lettuce ( Psitia stratiotes ) in southeastern Florida. Fla. Entomol. 68: 169-178. Marfin, A. A., L. R. Petersen, M. Eidson, J. Mi ller, J. Hadler, C. Farello, B. Werner, G. L. Campbell, M. Layton, P. Smith, E. Bresnitz M. Cartter, J. Scaletta, G. Obiri, M. Bunning, R. C. Craven, J. T. Roehrig, K. G. Julian, S. R. Hinten, D. J. Gubler, and A. C. S. Group. 2001. Widespread West Nile virus ac tivity, Eastern United States, 2000. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 730-735.

PAGE 158

158 Maxwell, G. R., and H. W. Kale. 1977. Maintenance and anti-insect behavior of 6 species of ciconiiform birds in South Florida. Condor 79: 51-55. McCaig, L. F., H. T. Janowski, R. A. Gunn, and T. F. Tsai. 1994. Epidemiologic aspects of a St. Louis encephalitis outbr eak in Fort Walton Beach, Fl orida in 1980. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 50: 387-391. McLean, R. G., and G. S. Bowen. 1980. Vertebrate Hosts, pp. 381-450. In T. P. Monath (ed.), St. Louis encephalitis. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. McLean, R. G., G. Frier, G. L. Parham, D. B. Francy, T. P. Monath, E. G. Campos, A. Therrien, J. Kerschner, and C. H. Calisher. 1985. Investigations of the vertebrate hosts of Eastern equine encephalitis during an epizootic in Michigan, 1980. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 34: 1190-1202. McLean, R. G., J. Mullenix, J. Kerschner, and J. Hamm. 1983. The House Sparrow ( Passer domesticus ) as a sentinel for St. Louis encepha litis virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 32: 1120-1129. Miller, D. L., M. J. Mauel, C. Baldwin, G. Burtle, D. Ingram, M. E. Hines, and K. S. Frazier. 2003. West Nile virus in farmed allig ators. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9: 794-799. Mitchell, C. J., D. B. Francy, and T. P. Monath. 1980. Arthropod Vectors, pp. 313-380. In T. P. Monath (ed.), St. Louis Encephalitis. Amer ican Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Mitchell, C. J., C. D. Morris, G. C. Smith, N. Karabatsos, D. Vanlandingham, and E. Cody. 1996. Arboviruses associated with mosquitoes from nine Florida counties during 1993. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 12: 255-262. Mitchell, C. J., M. L. Niebylski, G. C. Smith, N. Karabatsos, D. Martin, J. P. Mutebi, G. B. Craig, and M. J. Mahler. 1992. Isolation of Eastern equi ne encephalitis virus from Aedes albopictus in Florida. Science 257: 526-527. Monath, T. P., M. S. Sabattini, R. Pauli, J. F. Daffner, C. J. Mitchell, G. S. Bowen, and C. B. Cropp. 1985. Arbovirus investigations in Arge ntina, 1977-1980 .4. Serologic surveys and sentinel equine program. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 34: 966-975. Moore, C. G., R. G. McLean, C. J. Mitchell, R. S. Nasci, T. F. Tsai, C. H. Calisher, A. A. Marfin, P. S. Moore, and D. J. Gubler. 1993. Guidelines for arbovirus surveillance programs in the United States, pp. 81, Fort Collins. Morris, C. D. 1988. Eastern equine encephalomyelitis, pp. 1-20. In T. P. Monath (ed.), The Arboviruses: Epidemiology and Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Morris, C. D. 1992. Eastern equine encephalitis. J. Fla. Mosq. Control Assoc. 63: 23-34.

PAGE 159

159 Morris, C. D., W. G. Baker, L. Stark, J. Burgess, and A. L. Lewis. 1994. Comparison of chickens and pheasants as sentinels for Eastern equine encephalitis and St. Louis encephalitis viruses in Florida. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 10: 545-548. Morris, C. D., J. L. Callahan, and A. L. Lewis. 1990. Distribution and abundance of larval Coquillettidia perturbans in a Florida freshwater marsh. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 6: 452-460. Mostashari, F., M. L. Bunning, P. T. Kitsutani, D. A. Singer, D. Nash, M. J. Cooper, N. Katz, K. A. Liljebjelke, B. J. Biggerstaff, A. D. Fine, M. C. Layton, S. M. Mullin, A. J. Johnson, D. A. Martin, E. B. Hayes, and G. L. Campbell. 2001. Epidemiologic West Nile encephalitis, New York, 1999: results of a household-based seroepidemiological survey. Lancet 358: 261-264. Mount, G. A. 1970. Optimum droplet size for adult mosquito control with space sprays or aerosols of insecticides. Mosq. News 30: 70-75. Mullen, G., and L. Durden. 2002. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Academic Press, Boston, MA. Mulrennan, J. A. 1969. Early observations during SLEV epidemics in 1959, 1961 and 1962. Florida State Board of Health Monograph "Saint Louis Encephali tis in Florida" 12: xi-xii. Nasci, R. S., and J. D. Edman. 1981. Vertical and temporal fli ght activity of the mosquito Culiseta melanura (Diptera: Culicidae) in southeas tern Massachusetts. J. Med. Entomol. 18: 501-504. Nayar, J. K. 1982. Bionomics and physiology of Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) of Florida: an important vect or of diseases, pp. 73, FAES T echnical Bulletin, Vero Beach, FL. Nelson, D. B., K. D. Kappus, H. T. Janowski, E. E. Buff, F. M. Wellings, and N. J. Schneider. 1983. St. Louis encephalitis Florida 1977: Patterns of a widespread outbreak. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 32: 412-416. Nemeth, N., D. Gould, R. A. Bowen, and N. Komar. 2006. Natural and experimental West Nile virus infection in five rapt or species. J. Wild. Dis. 42: 1-13. Nichols, J. B., and W. J. Bigler. 1967. Animal sentinels in a statewide arthropod-borne encephalitis surveillance program. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 151: 1767-1771. O'Bryan, P. D., and H. J. Jefferson. 1991. The year of the chicken: the good and bad of a sentinel chicken flock during the 1990 Florida SLEV epidem ic. J. Fla. Mosq. Control Assoc. 62: 59-63. Olson, J. G., W. C. Reeves, R. W. Emmons, and M. M. Milby. 1979. Correlation of Culex tarsalis population indices with the incidence of St. Louis ence phalitis and western equine encephalomyelitis in California. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 28: 335-343.

PAGE 160

160 Olson, J. G., T. W. Scott, L. H. Lorenz, and J. L. Hubbard. 1991. Enzyme-immunoassay for detection of antibodies against Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus in sentinel chickens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 29: 1457-1461. O'Meara, G. F., and F. D. S. Evans. 1983. Seasonal patterns of abundance among three species of Culex mosquitoes in a south Florida wastew ater lagoon. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 76: 130-133. Ostlund, E. N., R. L. Crom, D. D. Peders en, D. J. Johnson, W. O. Williams, and B. J. Schmitt. 2001. Equine West Nile encephalitis, Un ited States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 665669. Ott, R. L., and M. Longnecker. 2001. Statistical methods and data analysis. Thomson Learning, United States of America. Peiris, J. S., F. P. Amerasinghe, C. K. Arunagiri, L. P. Perera, S. H. Karunaratne, C. B. Ratnayake, T. A. Kulatilak a, and M. R. Abeysinghe. 1993. Japanese encephalitis in Sri Lanka: comparison of vector and virus ecology in different agro-climatic areas. Tran. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 87: 541-548. Petersen, L. R., and A. A. Marfin. 2002. West Nile virus: A pr imer for the clinician. Ann. Intern. Med. 137: 173-179. Pilipski, J. D., L. M. Pilipski, and L. S. Risley. 2004. West Nile virus antibodies in bats from New Jersey and New York. J. Wild. Dis. 40: 335-337. Provost, M. W. 1969. The natural history of Culex nigripalpus Florida State Board of Health Monograph "Saint Louis Encepha litis in Florida" 12: 46-62. Provost, M. W. 1973. Mosquito flight and night relative hu midity in Florida. Fla. Sci. 36: 218225. Rainey, M. B., G. V. Warren, A. D. Hess, and J. S. Blackmore. 1962. A sentinel chicken shed and mosquito trap for use in encephalit is field studies. Mosq. News 22: 337-342. Ranck, F. M., J. H. Gainer, J. E. Hanley, and S. L. Nelson. 1965. Natural outbreak of Eastern and Western encephalitis in pen-raised Chuckars in Fl orida. Avian Dis. 9: 8-20. Rappole, J. H., S. R. Derrick son, and Z. Hubalek. 2000. Migratory birds and spread of West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphe re. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 6: 319-328. Reeves, W. C. 1968. A review of developments associated with the control of western equine and St. Louis encephalitis in California dur ing 1967. Proc. Pap. 35th Annu. Meet. Calif. Mosq. Control Assoc. 36: 65-70. Reeves, W. C., R. P. Scrivani, and R. E. Bellamy. 1961. Differentiation of encephalitis virus infection rates from transmission rates in mo squito vector populations. Am. J. Hyg. 73: 303-315.

PAGE 161

161 Reeves, W. C., J. M. Sturgeon, E. M. French, and B. Brookman. 1954. Transovarian transmission of neutralizing substances to Western equine and St. Louis encephalitis viruses by avian hosts. J. Infect. Dis. 95: 168-178. Reisen, W. K., J. L. Hardy, and S. B. Presser. 1992. Evaluation of domestic pigeons as sentinels for detecting arboviru s activity in Southern Calif ornia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 46: 69-79. Reisen, W., H. Lothrop, R. Chiles, M. Madon, C. Cossen, L. Woods, S. Husted, V. Kramer, and J. Edman. 2004. West Nile virus in California. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10: 1369-1378. Reisen, W. K., S. B. Presser, J. Y. Lin, B. Enge, J. L. Hardy, and R. W. Emmons. 1994. Viremia and serological responses in adult chickens infected with Western equine encephalomyelitis and St. Louis encephalitis viruses. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 10: 549-555. Reisen, W. K., S. S. Wheeler, S. Yamamoto, Y. Fang, and S. Garcia. 2005. Nesting Ardeid colonies are not a focus of elevated West Nile virus activity in Southe rn California. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 5: 258-266. Reiter, P. 1988. Weather, vector biology, and arboviral recrudescence, pp. 245-255. In T. P. Monath (ed.), The Arboviruses: Epidem iology and Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Robertson, L. C., S. Prior, C. S. Apperson, and W. S. Irby. 1993. Bionomics of Anopheles quadrimaculatus and Culex erraticus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Falls Lake Basin, North Carolina: Seasonal changes in abundan ce and gonotrophic stat us, and host-feeding patterns. J. Med. Entomol. 30: 689-98. Rogers, A. J. 1969. Research on the control of SLEV vect ors in Florida and the Southeastern United States. Florida State Board of Health Monograph "Saint Louis Encephalitis in Florida" 12: 63-72. Rutledge, C. R., J. F. Day, C. C. Lord, L. M. Stark, and W. J. Tabachnick. 2003. West Nile virus infection rates in Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) do not reflect transmission rates in Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 40: 253-258. Sanders, M., A. Blumberg, and W. Haymaker. 1953. Polyradiculopathy in man produced by St. Louis encephalitis virus (S LE). South. Med. J. 46: 606-608. Sardelis, M. R., M. J. Turell, D. J. Dohm, and M. L. O'Guinn. 2001. Vector competence of selected North American Culex and Coquillettidia mosquitoes for West Nile virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 1018-1022. Sardelis, M. R., M. J. Turell, M. L. O'Guinn, R. G. Andre, and D. R. Roberts. 2002. Vector competence of three North American strains of Aedes albopictus for West Nile virus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 18: 284-289. SAS Institute. 2002. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

PAGE 162

162 Scott, T. W. 1988. Vertebrate Host Ecology, pp. 257-281. In T. P. Monath (ed.), The Arboviruses: Epidemiology and Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Scott, T. W., and S. C. Weaver. 1989. Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus: Epidemiology and evolution of mosquito tran smission. Adv. Virus Res. 37: 277-328. Scott, T. W., J. D. Edman, L. H. Lorenz, and J. L. Hubbard. 1988. Effects of disease on vertebrates' ability behaviorally to repel host-seeking mosquitoes, pp. 9-17. In T. W. Scott and J. Grumstrup-Scott (eds .), Proceedings, Symposium: the Role of Vector-Host Interactions in Disease Transmission. Nati onal Conference of the Entomological Society of America, 10 December 1985, Hollywood, FL. Miscellaneous Publication 68. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD. Scott, T. W., L. H. Lorenz, and J. D. Edman. 1990a. Effects of House sparrow age and arbovirus infection on attr action of mosquitoes. J. Med. Entomol. 27: 856-863. Scott, T. W., L. H. Lorenz, and S. C. Weaver. 1990b. Susceptibility of Aedes albopictus to infection with Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 6: 274-278. Scott, T. W., S. A. Wright, B. F. Eldridge, and D. A. Brown. 2001. Cost effectiveness of three arbovirus surveillance methods in northern California. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 17: 118-123. Senne, D. A., J. C. Pedersen, D. L. Hutto, D. J. Taylor, B. J. Schmitt, and B. Panigrahy. 2000. Pathogenicity of West Nile virus in chickens. Avian Dis. 44: 642-649. Service, M. W. 1976. Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods. John Wiley and Sons., New York. Shaman, J., J. F. Day, and M. Stieglitz. 2002. Drought-induced amplification of St. Louis encephalitis virus, Florida. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8: 575-580. Shaman, J., J. F. Day, and M. Stieglitz. 2003a. St. Louis encephalitis vi rus in wild birds during the 1990 South Florida epidemic: The importance of drought, wetting conditions, and the emergence of Culex nigripalpus (Diptera: Culicidae) to arboviral amplification and transmission. J. Med. Entomol. 40: 547-554. Shaman, J., J. F. Day, and M. Stieglitz. 2004a. The spatial-temporal distribution of drought, wetting, and human cases of St. Louis encephali tis in South-central Florida. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 71: 251-261. Shaman, J., J. F. Day, and M. Stieglitz. 2005. Drought-induced amplification and epidemic transmission of West Nile Virus in southern Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 42: 134-141. Shaman, J., J. F. Day, M. Stieglitz, S. Zebiak, and M. Cane. 2004b. Seasonal forecast of St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission, Fl orida. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10: 802-809.

PAGE 163

163 Shaman, J., M. Stieglitz, S. Zebiak, and M. Cane. 2003b. A local forecast of land surface wetness conditions derived from seasonal cl imate predictions. J. Hydromet. 4: 611-626. Shroyer, D. A. 1991. The 1990 Florida epidemic of St. Louis encephalitis: virus infection rates in Culex nigripalpus J. Fla. Mosq. Control Assoc. 62: 69-71. Slaff, M., and J. D. Haefner. 1985. Seasonal and spatial distribution of Mansonia dyari Mansonia titillans and Coquillettidia perturbans (Diptera: Culicidae) in the central Florida, USA, phosphate region. J. Med. Entomol. 22: 624-629. Sooter, C. A., M. Schaeffer, R. Gorrie, and A. T. Cockburn. 1954. Transovarian passage of antibodies following naturally acquired encephalitis infection in birds. J. Infect. Dis. 95: 165-167. Stamm, D. D., and R. J. Newman. 1963. Evidence of southward transport of arboviruses from the United States by migratory bird s. An. Microbiologia 11: 123-133. Stamm, D. D., R. W. Chamberlain, and W. D. Sudia. 1962. Arbovirus studies in south Alabama, 1957-1958. Am. J. Hyg. 76: 6181. Stark, L. M. and D. Kazanis. 2005. Florida Department of Hea lth, Bureau of Laboratories, Tampa: Arbovirus Surveillance: Annual Summary Report 2005. Sudia, W. D., and R. W. Chamberlain. 1964. Experimental infection of Culex nigripalpus Theobald with the virus of St. Louis en cephalitis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 13: 469-471. Sudia, W. D., R. D. Lord, and R. O. Hayes. 1970. Collection and processing of vertebrate specimens for arbovirus studies, pp. 65, Atlanta, GA. Sudia, W. D., V. F. Newhouse, and W. A. Chappell. 1969. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus-vector studies followi ng a human case in Dade Count y, Florida. Mosq. News 29: 596-600. Taylor, D. J., K. E. Meadows, N. J. Schneid er, J. A. Mulrennan, and E. E. Buff. 1969. St. Louis encephalitis virus and Culex nigripalpus in Florida. Florida State Board of Health Monograph "Saint Louis Encepha litis in Florida" 12: 34-45. Tiawsirisup, S., K. B. Platt, B. J. Tucker, and W. A. Rowley. 2005. Eastern cottontail rabbits ( Sylvilagus floridanus ) develop West Nile virus viremias sufficient for infecting select mosquito species. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 5: 342-350. Trainer, D. O. 1970. The use of wildlife to monitor zoonoses. J. Wild. Dis. 6: 397-401. Trevejo, R. T., and W. C. Reeves. 2005. Antibody response to Culex tarsalis salivary gland antigens among sentinel chic kens in California. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 72: 481-487.

PAGE 164

164 Trock, S. C., B. J. Meade, A. L. Glaser, E. N. Ostlund, R. S. Lanciotti, B. C. Cropp, V. L. Kulasekera, L. D. Kramer, and N. Komar. 2001. West Nile virus outbreak among horses in New York state, 1999 a nd 2000. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7: 745-747. Tsai, T. F., and C. J. Mitchell. 1989. St. Louis encephalitis, pp. 113-143. In T. P. Monath (ed.), The Arboviruses: Epidemiology and Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Tully, T. N., S. M. Shane, R. P. Poston, J. J. England, C. C. Vice, D. Y. Cho, and B. Panigrahy. 1992. Eastern equine encephalitis in a flock of emus ( Dromaius novaehollandiae ). Avian Dis. 36: 808-812. Turell, M. J., D. J. Dohm, M. R. Sardelis, M. L. O Guinn, T. G. Andreadis, and J. A. Blow. 2005. An update on the potential of North Ameri can mosquitoes (Diptera : Culicidae) to transmit West Nile virus. J. Med. Entomol. 42: 57-62. Tyzzer, E. E., A. W. Sellards, and B. L. Bennett. 1938. The occurrence in nature of "Equine encephalomyelitis" in the ring-n ecked pheasant. Science 88: 505-506. University of Florida Department of Physics. 2005. Department of Physics weather station. http://www.phys.ufl.edu/weather/ Vaidyanathan, R., J. D. Edman, L. A. Cooper, and T. W. Scott. 1997. Vector competence of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) from Massach usetts for a sympatric isolate of Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus. J. Med. Entomol. 34: 346-352. Ventura, A. K., and J. N. Ehrenhranz. 1975. Detection of Venezuel an equine encephalitis virus in rural communities of Southern Florid a by exposure of sentinel hamsters. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 24: 715-717. Villari, P., A. Spielman, N. Komar, M. McDowell, and R. J. Timperi. 1995. The economic burden imposed by a residual case of Easter n encephalitis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 52: 813. Waage, J. K., and J. Nondo. 1982. Host behavior and mosquito feeding success an experimental study. Tran. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 76: 119-122. Ward, M. R., D. E. Stallknecht, J. Willis, M. J. Conroy, and W. R. Davidson. 2006. Wild bird mortality and West Nile virus surveilla nce: biases associated with detection, reporting, and carcass persistan ce. J. Wild. Dis. 42: 92-106. Watson, J. T., R. C. Jones, K. Gibbs, and W. Paul. 2004a. Dead crow reports and location of human West Nile virus cases, Chi cago, 2002. Emerg. Infect Dis. 10: 938-940. Watson, J. T., P. E. Pertel, R. C. Jones, A. M. Siston, W. S. Paul, C. C. Austin, and S. I. Gerber. 2004b. Clinical characteristics and functiona l outcomes of West Nile fever. Ann. Intern. Med. 141: 360-365.

PAGE 165

165 Webber, L. A., and J. D. Edman. 1972. Anti-mosquito behavior of ciconiiform birds. Anim. Behav. 20: 228-232. Wellings, F. M., A. L. Lewis, and L. V. Pierce. 1972. Agents encountered during arboviral ecological studies: Tampa Bay area, Flor ida, 1963-1970. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 21: 201213. Williams, J. E., D. M. Watts, O. P. Young, and T. J. Reed. 1972. Transmission of Eastern (EEE) and Western (WEE) encephalitis to Bobw hite sentinels in re lation to density of Culiseta melanura mosquitoes. Mosq. News 32: 188-192. Wright, R. E., and K. L. Knight. 1966. Effect of environmental factors on biting activity of Aedes vexans (Meigen) and Aedes trivittatus (Coquillett). Mosq. News 26: 565-578. Zyzak, M., T. Loyless, S. Cope, M. Wooster, and J. F. Day. 2002. Seasonal abundance of Culex nigripalpus Theobald and Culex salinarius Coquillett in north Florida, USA. J. Vector Ecol. 27: 155-162.

PAGE 166

166 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kevin Conrad Kobylinski was born on May 9, 1981 in Frederick, Maryland, to Rae Ann Kobylinski and Edmund Arthur Kobylinski. He has two younger brothers, Patrick and William. At an early age Kevin developed a fondness of the insect kingdom, collecting locust shells and keeping spiders as pets. He l oved his grandfathers cabin in ru ral Missouri and was quite fond of walks through the woods and observing the natural world. Shortly after his eighteenth birthday Kevin left home for college at Kansas State University. He began his college career in En gineering but was not satisfied with this career path. His calling was found after enrolling in Dr. Greg Zolnerowichs introductory course, Insects and People. By the end of that semest er he had switched his degree to Wildlife Biology with a minor in Entomology. Kevin excelled in his Entomology coursework and took every class available. He volunteered to work in the Insect Zoo operated by Dr. Ralph Charlton. During the summers Kevin worked for Drs. Albe rto Broce, Thomas Janousek, and Ludek Zurek on the West Nile Virus Surveilla nce Project. This introduced Kevin to his current passion, Medical Entomology and Vector Biology. Kevin is happy working in this field because he knows that the work he does is used to benefit the world by helping people.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017601/00001

Material Information

Title: Mosquito and Sentinel Chicken Interactions with an Assessment of Experimental Cage Design and Flight Activity of Mosquitoes in Orange County, Florida: 2005-2006
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Kobylinski, Kevin C. ( Dissertant )
Rutledge-Connelly, Cynthia Roxanne ( Thesis advisor )
Breaud, Thomas ( Reviewer )
Day, Jon ( Reviewer )
Allan, Sandra ( Reviewer )
Kline, Dan ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2006

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Entomology and Nematology Thesis, Ph.D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Entomology and Nematology
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( margct )

Notes

Abstract: An experimental cage was created to attract and contain mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are funneled into the cage through a baffle. Mosquitoes are contained in the cage, in the exit trap, or they escape through the baffle slit. Trials were conducted in Gainesville, FL from May 26 through July 25, 2005 to determine mosquito escape rates from the experimental cage. Five colony-raised mosquito species were used: Culex nigripalpus Theobald, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, Aedes albopictus (Skuse), and Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus). Mosquito escape rates from the cage with the baffle slit open and two restrained chickens inside the cage were Cx. nigripalpus 77.7 ± 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 47.4 ± 10.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 65.8 ± 12.1%, Ae. albopictus 58.7 ± 4.6%, and Ae. aegypti 57.0 ± 5.5%. Chickens display a variety of defensive behaviors in response to host seeking mosquitoes. From July 26 through August 13, 2005, in Gainesville, Florida, adult chickens were exposed to known densities of mosquitoes. A restrained chicken and an unrestrained chicken were housed in two separate experimental cages and exposed to 300 Cx. nigripalpus or 300 Ae. albopictus. Blood-feeding success of Ae. albopictus varied significantly between the unrestrained chicken (6.1%) trials and the restrained chicken (22.2%) trials (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) . Groups of four chickens were exposed in the experimental cage once a week at two field sites, Tibet-Butler Preserve and Moss Park, in Orange County, FL from October 12, 2005 to July 5, 2006. All mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage the morning after exposure, collected from the exit trap, identified to species, pooled by species, and frozen at -80ºC. Twelve species of mosquitoes were captured in the experimental cage at Tibet-Butler Preserve and seven species at Moss Park. Coquillettida perturbans (Walker), Cx. nigripalpus, and Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab) were frequently captured in the experimental cage at both sites. Mansonia titillans (Walker) was captured frequently at Tibet-Butler Preserve. Mosquitoes were more frequently captured in the cage than in the exit trap at Tibet-Butler Preserve (T-test, t = 14.86, P < 0.0001) and Moss Park (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0052). Coquillettidia perturbans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.39, P = 0.0085), Cx. erraticus (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 1.86, P = 0.0317), and Ma. titillans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048) were more likely to fly upward and become captured in the exit trap when blood-fed. A rotator trap, baited with incandescent light and CO2, was operated on all nights that experimental chickens were exposed from November 7, 2005 through July 5, 2006 to determine periods of mosquito flight activity at night. Coquillettida perturbans (ANOVA, F = 4.74, P < 0.0001) and Cx. erraticus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 25.2, P = 0.0007) exhibited crepuscular host-seeking patterns. Anopheles crucians Wiedemann (ANOVA, F = 4.14, P = 0.0003), Cx. nigripalpus (ANOVA, F=13.96, P < 0.0001), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Kruskal- Wallis, Chi-square = 22.4, P = 0.0022), and Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) (ANOVA, F = 6.55, P < 0.0001) exhibited nocturnal host-seeking patterns.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2006.
Bibliography: Includes biographical references.
General Note: Vita.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 166 p.
General Note: Title from title page of document.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017601:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0017601/00001

Material Information

Title: Mosquito and Sentinel Chicken Interactions with an Assessment of Experimental Cage Design and Flight Activity of Mosquitoes in Orange County, Florida: 2005-2006
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Language: English
Creator: Kobylinski, Kevin C. ( Dissertant )
Rutledge-Connelly, Cynthia Roxanne ( Thesis advisor )
Breaud, Thomas ( Reviewer )
Day, Jon ( Reviewer )
Allan, Sandra ( Reviewer )
Kline, Dan ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2006
Copyright Date: 2006

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Entomology and Nematology Thesis, Ph.D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Entomology and Nematology
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( margct )

Notes

Abstract: An experimental cage was created to attract and contain mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are funneled into the cage through a baffle. Mosquitoes are contained in the cage, in the exit trap, or they escape through the baffle slit. Trials were conducted in Gainesville, FL from May 26 through July 25, 2005 to determine mosquito escape rates from the experimental cage. Five colony-raised mosquito species were used: Culex nigripalpus Theobald, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, Aedes albopictus (Skuse), and Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus). Mosquito escape rates from the cage with the baffle slit open and two restrained chickens inside the cage were Cx. nigripalpus 77.7 ± 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 47.4 ± 10.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 65.8 ± 12.1%, Ae. albopictus 58.7 ± 4.6%, and Ae. aegypti 57.0 ± 5.5%. Chickens display a variety of defensive behaviors in response to host seeking mosquitoes. From July 26 through August 13, 2005, in Gainesville, Florida, adult chickens were exposed to known densities of mosquitoes. A restrained chicken and an unrestrained chicken were housed in two separate experimental cages and exposed to 300 Cx. nigripalpus or 300 Ae. albopictus. Blood-feeding success of Ae. albopictus varied significantly between the unrestrained chicken (6.1%) trials and the restrained chicken (22.2%) trials (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) . Groups of four chickens were exposed in the experimental cage once a week at two field sites, Tibet-Butler Preserve and Moss Park, in Orange County, FL from October 12, 2005 to July 5, 2006. All mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage the morning after exposure, collected from the exit trap, identified to species, pooled by species, and frozen at -80ºC. Twelve species of mosquitoes were captured in the experimental cage at Tibet-Butler Preserve and seven species at Moss Park. Coquillettida perturbans (Walker), Cx. nigripalpus, and Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab) were frequently captured in the experimental cage at both sites. Mansonia titillans (Walker) was captured frequently at Tibet-Butler Preserve. Mosquitoes were more frequently captured in the cage than in the exit trap at Tibet-Butler Preserve (T-test, t = 14.86, P < 0.0001) and Moss Park (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0052). Coquillettidia perturbans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.39, P = 0.0085), Cx. erraticus (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 1.86, P = 0.0317), and Ma. titillans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048) were more likely to fly upward and become captured in the exit trap when blood-fed. A rotator trap, baited with incandescent light and CO2, was operated on all nights that experimental chickens were exposed from November 7, 2005 through July 5, 2006 to determine periods of mosquito flight activity at night. Coquillettida perturbans (ANOVA, F = 4.74, P < 0.0001) and Cx. erraticus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 25.2, P = 0.0007) exhibited crepuscular host-seeking patterns. Anopheles crucians Wiedemann (ANOVA, F = 4.14, P = 0.0003), Cx. nigripalpus (ANOVA, F=13.96, P < 0.0001), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Kruskal- Wallis, Chi-square = 22.4, P = 0.0022), and Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) (ANOVA, F = 6.55, P < 0.0001) exhibited nocturnal host-seeking patterns.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2006.
Bibliography: Includes biographical references.
General Note: Vita.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 166 p.
General Note: Title from title page of document.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0017601:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












MOSQUITO AND SENTINEL CHICKEN INTERACTIONS WITH AN
ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL CAGE DESIGN AND FLIGHT
ACTIVITY OF MOSQUITOES IN ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 2005-2006















By

KEVIN C. KOBYLINSKI


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Kevin C. Kobylinski










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Robyn Raban for her countless efforts, suggestions, and help. I thank Sean

McCann, Erin Vrzal, Aissa Doumboya, Melissa Doyle, Aaron Lloyd, Joyce Urban, Haze Brown,

and David Hoel for their support, help, and suggestions concerning rearing and experiments in

Gainesville. I thank Gregg Ross, Amador Rodriguez, Columbus Holland, Terry Hughes, Sue

Durand, Armond Cross, and the Orange County Mosquito Control Division Staff for their

support, help, and suggestions concerning field research. I thank Dr. Don Shroyer, Dr. Jerry

Hogsette, Dr. Phil Koehler, Frank Wessels, Leslie Rios, and the Urban Entomology Laboratory

for their thoughtful suggestions and support. I thank Dr. Cynthia Lord, Dr. Ramon Littell,

Robyn Raban, and Alejandro Arevalo for their help with statistical analysis. I thank Dr. Sandra

Allan and Dr. Dan Kline for their support, help, suggestions, and use of laboratory supplies and

space for work done in Gainesville. I thank Dr. Cynthia Rutledge-Connelly, Dr. Thomas

Breaud, Dr. Jon Day, Dr. Sandra Allan, and Dr. Dan Kline for all their support, help, and

suggestions during the experiments and writing process. This research was funded in part by the

National Institutes of Health Grant AI042164, "Modeling and Empirical Studies of Arboviruses

in Florida." This research was funded in part by the Mosquito Control Division, Health and

Family Services Department, Orange County Florida.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

A CK N O W LED G M EN TS ................................................................. ........... ............. 3

T A B L E O F C O N TEN T S........................................................ ...............................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S ..................................................................................................... . 7

L IST O F FIG U R E S ............................................................................... 9

ABSTRAC T ................................................... ............... 10

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ................................................................................ 12

Arboviruses in Florida ..............................................................................13
St. Louis Encephalitis V irus ............................................................... ..............14
W e st N ile V iru s ......................................................................................................... 1 5
Eastern Equine Encephalitis V irus .......................................................... ...... 16
Western Equine Encephalitis Virus: Highlands J Virus ..............................................17
Culex nigripalpus and Virus Transmission in Florida................................. ...............18
St. Louis Encephalitis Virus ..................................... ......... .. ...... ................. 18
W est N ile V irus ..................................................... ............... .. ...... 19
Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus ....................................... .......... ............20
Other Potential Vectors of Arboviruses in Florida ............... .................. 20
Potential Vectors of St. Louis Encephalitis Virus ....................................................21
Potential V sectors of W est N ile virus ..................................................................... ... 22
Potential Vectors of Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus ..............................................23
Surveillance of A rboviruses .......................................................................................25
H u m an Su rveillance ....................................................................................................2 6
W weather P pattern s ................................. .................. ... ......................... ........................ 2 8
V sector Su rveillan ce ......................................................................................... 2 8
M monitoring of M mosquito Abundance..................................................... ...... ......... 29
P arity A nalysis................. ................................... 30
Minimum Infection Rates in Mosquitoes ............................................................... 30
Non-Human Vertebrate Surveillance .................................................32
Live, W ild V ertebrate Surveillance ............................................................ .....32
W ild bird surveillance ............................................................................................. 33
W ild m am m al surveillance.......... ..... .................................... ............ .............. 34
W ild reptile surveillance ........................................................ 36
D ead, W ild B ird Surveillance.................................................... ............... 36
D om estic A nim al Surveillance................................................ ............................ 38




4









Sentinel A nim al Surveillance .............................................. ....... ........................ 41
Sentinel m amm als .................................... ... .. .......... ....... .... 42
S en tin el b ird s ................................................................................ 4 2

2 C A G E E SC A PE TR IA L S............................................................. .....................................50

In tro d u ctio n ................... ...................5...................0..........
M materials and M methods ................................... .. ...... ..... .. ............51
M mosquito R hearing .............. .......................... .................... .......... 52
M a rk in g ...................................................................................................................... 5 3
C h ick e n s ................................................................5 3
E xperim mental C age D design ..................................................................... ..... ...............54
A sp irato r ............................................................................... 5 5
E sc a p e R a te s .......................................................................................................5 6
E n try R ate s ................................................................5 7
R e su lts ............... ... ................. ............................................................................................... 5 7
E scape T rial R results ................................................................57
C age E ntry R results ................................................................58
D iscu ssio n ................... ...................5...................9..........
C onclu sions..... ..........................................................62

3 SENTINEL CHICKEN DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR ....... .......................72

In tro d u c tio n .............. ...... ......... ....................................................................................... 7 2
M materials an d M eth o d s ...................................................................................................... 7 3
Mosquito Rearing ............... ......... ......... ...............73
Mark-Release-Recapture Studies ................................................75
C h ick e n s .............................................................7 6
H o st D efen siv e B eh av ior............................................................................................ 76
Effect of Host Defensive Behavior................. ...... ......... .....................77
R e su lts .............. ..... ............ ....................................... ................................. ............ 7 8
D iscu ssion ........... .... ........... ....................................... ............................79
C onclu sions..... ..........................................................84

4 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SITES: ARBOVIRUSES/VECTORS/HOSTS ........................88

In tro d u c tio n .............. ..... .......... ....................................................................................... 8 8
Site D description s ......... ...... ............ ...................................... ............................89
Tibet-Butler Preserve ........................................................................... ......... ..................89
M o ss P ark ......... ...... ............ ..................................... ............................9 1
A rboviruses ......... ............................................................................ ...... 92
Tibet-Butler Preserve ................. ........ .............. ............. 92
M oss Park ..................................................................................................... ............. 93
V ectors of A rboviruses ................................................................................................. ........ 94
Avian Hosts of Arboviruses ................................. ........................... ...........95
D iscu ssio n ................... ...................9...................8..........










5 EXPERIMENTAL ARBOVIRAL SURVEILLANCE IN ORANGE COUNTY, FL.........105

Introduction ................ .................. .............. ...............105
M materials an d M eth od s ............................................................................... ..................... 10 5
Sentinel Chickens ......... ............................................................ 105
M o sq u ito e s .............................................................................10 7
R results ........... ........ ..... ........... ........ ....................... ............... 108
D iscu ssio n ......... ...... ................................................. ............................10 8
C o n clu sio n ......... ..... ................................................ ...........................1 10

6 C A G E A N A L Y SIS .............. ..... ............ ...............................................................114

Introduction ................ .................. .............. ...............114
Materials and Methods ............... ......... ................. 115
Results ........... ................. ............................. ............... 116
Tibet-Butler Preserve ......................................................................... ........ ........ .... ........ 116
M oss Park .......... .... ..... .... ...... ................ ......... 117
D iscu ssio n ......... ...... ................................................. ............................1 18
C onclu sions..... .........................................................12 1

7 ROTATOR STUDIES .................. ......... ..................128

Introduction ................ .................. .............. ...............128
M materials and M methods ...............................................................129
Results ........... ................. ............................. ............... 130
Tibet-Butler Preserve ......................................................................... ........ ........ .... ........ 130
M oss Park ........... ......... ..... ........ ...... ..................... ........ 131
D iscu ssio n ......... ...... ................................................. ............................13 2
C onclu sions..... .........................................................134

8 C O N C L U S IO N S ............................................................................................................. 14 6

REFEREN CES CITED ................................................ .. 148

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................... .............................. 166

















6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 L arval feeding regime en ............................................................................. .....................63

3-1 Effect of host defensive behavior on recovery, blood feeding success, and location
re c o v ere d ..........................................................................8 5

3-2 Effect of Cx. nigripalpus density on recovery, blood feeding success, and location
recovered when one or four chickens were present .................................. ............... 85

3-3 Behaviors displayed by chickens in response to mosquitoes.................. ............... 86

3-4 Defensive behaviors displayed by chickens in the presence of mosquitoes with
com m entry ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. ....................................................87

4-1 Seroconversions for EEEV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004 ................100

4-2 Seroconversions for SLEV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004 ....................100

4-3 Seroconversions for WNV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004.......................101

5 -1 R ain (m m ) ...................................... ..................................... ................. 1 1 1

5-2 Relative humidity (% ) .................................. .. .............. .. .. ............ 111

5-3 Tem perature (oC) ............... ................. ........... ................ ............. .. 111

5-4 W ind speed (km /h) .................................................... ............ .. ............ 112

5-5 B arom etric pressure (m m -H g) ..................................................................................... 112

6-1 M osquitoes captured in experimental cage at TBP...........................................................122

6-2 Other Diptera captured in experimental cage at TBP ................................ ............... 122

6-3 Mosquitoes captured in experimental cage at MP... ................ ...............123

6-4 Other Diptera captured in experimental cage at MP ...................................123

6-5 Mean number of mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at TBP .......................124

6-6 Percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at TBP................... 124

6-7 Mean number of blood-fed and non blood-fed mosquitoes by location at TBP................ 125

6-8 Mean number of mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and the cage at MP ..........................126









6-9 Percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the exit trap and cage at MP ........................126

6-10 Mean number of blood-fed and non blood-fed mosquitoes by location at MP ..................127

7-1 Rotator time schedule ........ .. ................................ .. .. ....... ................. 135

7-2 Tibet-Butler Preserve rotator catch totals 11/7/05 to 7/4/06 .................. ..................136

7-3 M oss Park rotator catch totals 11/8/05 to 7/5/06..................................... ............... 137









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Original sentinel chicken cage used by OCM CD ..................................... .................63

2-2 Experimental sentinel chicken cage used for research........................ ................... 64

2-3 Line draw ing of experim ental cage......... ................. ................................. ............... 65

2-4 Line drawing of experimental inner cage.................. .............. .................. 66

2-5 Sentinel chicken cage exit trap......... .................. ........ ............................... ............... 67

2-6 A ssem bled aspirator ......... ................................ ............................... 68

2-7 Night escape trials ........................ ....... .. ... .. .. .................. 69

2-8 D ay escape trials ....................................................... .................. 70

2-9 Percent mosquitoes recovered from experimental cage and exit trap..............................71

4-1 Orange County water bodies with sentinel sites, TBP and MP ......................................102

4 -2 A erial v iew of T B P .............. ................................................................................... 10 3

4-3 A erial view of M P ........ ......................... .......... .. .... .. ...... .............. 104

5-1 Total number of Culex nigripalpus captured in light traps in Orange County by month ..113

7-1 Anopheles crucians captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP .......................... .........138

7-2 Coquillettidia perturbans captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP .............................. 139

7-3 Culex erraticus captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP .............................................140

7-4 Culex nigripalpus captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP ........................ ............141

7-5 Culex quinquefasciatus captured by rotator trap at TBP....................... ...............142

7-6 Culiseta melanura captured by rotator trap at TBP ........................................ ................143

7-7 Mansonia titillans captured by rotator trap at TBP..........................................144

7-8 All species captured by rotator trap at TBP and MP .............. .... .................145














Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

MOSQUITO AND SENTINEL CHICKEN INTERACTIONS WITH AN
ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL CAGE DESIGN AND FLIGHT
ACTIVITY OF MOSQUITOES IN ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 2005-2006

By

Kevin C. Kobylinski

December 2006

Chair: Cynthia Roxanne Rutledge-Connelly
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology

An experimental cage was created to attract and contain mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are

funneled into the cage through a baffle. Mosquitoes are contained in the cage, in the exit trap, or

they escape through the baffle slit. Trials were conducted in Gainesville, FL from May 26

through July 25, 2005 to determine mosquito escape rates from the experimental cage. Five

colony-raised mosquito species were used: Culex nigripalpus Theobald, Culex quinquefasciatus

Say, Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, Aedes albopictus (Skuse), and Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus).

Mosquito escape rates from the cage with the baffle slit open and two restrained chickens inside

the cage were Cx. nigripalpus 77.7 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 47.4 10.9%, An.

quadrimaculatus 65.8 12.1%, Ae. albopictus 58.7 4.6%, and Ae. aegypti 57.0 5.5%.

Chickens display a variety of defensive behaviors in response to host seeking mosquitoes.

From July 26 through August 13, 2005, in Gainesville, Florida, adult chickens were exposed to

known densities of mosquitoes. A restrained chicken and an unrestrained chicken were housed

in two separate experimental cages and exposed to 300 Cx. nigripalpus or 300 Ae. albopictus.









Blood-feeding success ofAe. albopictus varied significantly between the unrestrained chicken

(6.1%) trials and the restrained chicken (22.2%) trials (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025).

Groups of four chickens were exposed in the experimental cage once a week at two field

sites, Tibet-Butler Preserve and Moss Park, in Orange County, FL from October 12, 2005 to July

5, 2006. All mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage the morning after exposure, collected from

the exit trap, identified to species, pooled by species, and frozen at -800C. Twelve species of

mosquitoes were captured in the experimental cage at Tibet-Butler Preserve and seven species at

Moss Park. Coquillettidaperturbans (Walker), Cx. nigripalpus, and Culex erraticus (Dyar and

Knab) were frequently captured in the experimental cage at both sites. Mansonia titillans

(Walker) was captured frequently at Tibet-Butler Preserve. Mosquitoes were more frequently

captured in the cage than in the exit trap at Tibet-Butler Preserve (T-test, t = 14.86, P < 0.0001)

and Moss Park (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.80, P = 0.0052). Coquillettidiaperturbans

(Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.39, P = 0.0085), Cx. erraticus (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test,

Z = 1.86, P = 0.0317), and Ma. titillans (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Z = 2.59, P = 0.0048) were

more likely to fly upward and become captured in the exit trap when blood-fed.

A rotator trap, baited with incandescent light and C02, was operated on all nights that

experimental chickens were exposed from November 7, 2005 through July 5, 2006 to determine

periods of mosquito flight activity at night. Coquillettidaperturbans (ANOVA, F = 4.74,

P < 0.0001) and Cx. erraticus (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square = 25.2, P = 0.0007) exhibited

crepuscular host-seeking patterns. Anopheles crucians Wiedemann (ANOVA, F = 4.14,

P = 0.0003), Cx. nigripalpus (ANOVA, F=13.96, P < 0.0001), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Kruskal-

Wallis, Chi-square = 22.4, P = 0.0022), and Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) (ANOVA, F = 6.55,

P < 0.0001) exhibited nocturnal host-seeking patterns.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Sentinel chickens are maintained at field sites in Orange County for the detection of

arboviruses. Blood samples are taken weekly from sentinel chickens and analyzed for arboviral

antibodies. Exit traps were attached to the county sentinel chicken cages to assess the species

diversity and abundance of mosquitoes that were attracted to the chickens.

An experimental cage, similar in design to the sentinel chicken cages used by Orange

County Mosquito Control Division (OCMCD), was created to draw mosquitoes into the cage and

contain the mosquitoes. Mosquitoes that approach the sentinel chickens are funneled upward

into the cage by a baffle that narrows to an entry slit. The mosquitoes are contained in the cage

or fly upward into the exit trap. Pre-field trials were conducted to determine the percent of

mosquitoes that could be recovered within the experimental cage and the percent of mosquitoes

that could escape from the experimental cage.

Vertebrates display a variety of defensive behaviors in response to host seeking

mosquitoes (Anderson and Brust 1995, Cully et al. 1991, Waage and Nondo 1982, Webber and

Edman 1972). Adult chicken defensive behavior and its influence on mosquito recovery rates

and mosquito blood-feeding success was assessed. Predetermined numbers of mosquitoes were

released into two cages with one restrained in one cage, and one unrestrained chicken in the

other cage. The effect of mosquito density and chicken defensive behavior on mosquito

recovery rates and mosquito blood-feeding success was assessed. Predetermined numbers of

mosquitoes were released into two cages with one unrestrained chicken in one cage, and four

unrestrained chickens in the other cage. The location in the cage that mosquitoes were recovered

from and their blood-fed status was recorded. The effect of chicken defensive behavior on









mosquito blood-feeding success and location of mosquito recovery in the experimental cage was

assessed.

Experimental chickens were placed at two field sites in Orange County from October 2005

to July 2006 for the detection of arbovirus antibodies. Mosquitoes were collected in the

experimental cage in attempt to determine which mosquitoes vectored arboviruses to sentinel

chickens in Orange County, FL. The diversity and abundance of mosquito species attracted to

chickens was documented. The location of mosquito recovery within the experimental cage was

documented to determine how representative the exit trap collections are of the mosquitoes that

approach sentinel chickens. Blood-feeding success was observed to determine how often blood-

fed mosquitoes fly upward into the exit trap.

The host-seeking times of nocturnally active mosquitoes differ among species. Knowledge

of the host-seeking times of nocturnally active mosquitoes is important to determine the most

appropriate time to conduct night-time adulticide spraying. A rotator trap was operated at the

field sites to determine periods of peak host-seeking activity.

Arboviruses in Florida

The diverse habitats found in Florida support a wide range of vertebrate hosts, mosquito

vectors, and arboviruses. Humans find the Florida climate attractive and millions of susceptible,

elderly humans have made Florida their home (Bond et al. 1963). The elderly tend to suffer

greater complications to arboviruses that occur in Florida such as St. Louis encephalitis (family

Flaviviridae, genus Flavivirus, SLEV) and West Nile virus (family Flaviviridae, genus

Flavivirus, WNV) (Bond et al. 1963, Petersen and Marfin 2002). As the population of north-

central Florida (greater Orlando area) continues to grow, human habitation pushes closer to

swamp foci, increasing the potential of human infection with Eastern equine encephalitis virus

(family Togaviridae, genus Alphavirus, EEEV) (Edman et al. 1972b, Morris 1992).









St. Louis Encephalitis Virus

St. Louis encephalitis virus was first documented in Florida from a thirty year-old man in

Miami in 1952 (Sanders et al. 1953). Since then there have been five major epidemics of SLEV

in three distinct regions of Florida (Bond 1969, Nelson et al. 1983, Day and Stark 2000). The

outbreaks of 1959, 1961, and 1962 were centered in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida (Pinellas,

Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota counties) (Bond 1969). There were 68 clinical human

cases of SLEV and five deaths in 1959, 25 cases and seven deaths in 1961, and 231 cases and 43

deaths in 1962 (CDC 2006a, Bond 1969). As with most outbreaks of SLEV, all deaths were

persons over the age of 45 years (Bond 1969). The primary epidemic vector during these

outbreaks and the 1977 and 1990 outbreaks in peninsular Florida, was Culex nigripalpus

Theobald (Dow et al. 1964, Shroyer 1991). In direct response to the outbreak of SLEV in 1962

the Encephalitis Research Center (ERC) of the Florida State Board of Health in Tampa was

established (Bond 1969).

From 1963 to 1976, only two human cases of SLEV were reported in Florida and thus

surveillance and research interests in SLEV declined (Nelson et al. 1983). The outbreak of

SLEV in 1977 lacked an urban focus and covered a broad region (20 counties) of central and

south Florida (Nelson et al. 1983). This outbreak differed from the previous outbreaks in Tampa

Bay because there was a high attack rate of SLEV in males between 15 and 24 years of age, most

likely due to outdoor occupations (Nelson et al. 1983). There were 110 presumptive and

confirmed human cases of SLEV in Florida in 1977 with 11 cases from Orange County (Nelson

et al. 1983). Interest in surveillance of arboviruses was heightened after this outbreak and the

establishment of the Florida Sentinel Chicken Surveillance Program began in 1978 (Day 1989).

Focal outbreaks and sporadic cases of SLEV in humans occurred from 1979 to 1984 (CDC

2006a). In 1990, there was an epidemic of SLEV in humans that spanned 28 counties in central









and south Florida with 226 clinical human cases and 11 deaths. In Orange County there were 28

human cases of SLEV (Day and Stark 2000). With the exception of two sporadic cases in 1969,

(FDOH 2006a) the 1977 and 1990 outbreaks were the only instances of reported human infection

of SLEV in Orange County. Focal and sporadic cases of SLEV in humans occurred from 1991

to 2002 throughout Florida (CDC 2006a).

Human infection with SLEV is typically a relatively mild illness characterized by fever

and headache, followed by complete recovery (Hayes 2000). Persons over the age of 45 may

experience severe central nervous system involvement of meningitis or encephalitis leading to

death (Bond 1969, Hayes 2000). Inapparent (asymptomatic) human SLEV infection rates vary

from 0.2 to 5.2% (Hayes 2000). Human SLEV infections in Florida typically occur between

August and December (Bond 1969, Nelson et al. 1983).

West Nile Virus

West Nile virus was first documented in Florida in 2001 (Blackmore et al. 2003). In 2001

WNV activity was dispersed throughout the entire state with 12 human cases ranging from the

panhandle to the Keys (Blackmore et al. 2003). In 2002 WNV activity was dispersed throughout

the entire state with 35 human cases, two deaths and three additional cases attributed to blood

transfusions and organ transplants. The only human case of WNV infection in Orange County

occurred in 2002 with an onset date of August 12. In 2003 WNV activity was dispersed

throughout the state with a heavy concentration of cases (61 cases in 10 counties) in the

northwest portion of the panhandle. There were 93 human cases of WNV and six deaths in

2003. In 2004 there were 39 human cases of WNV, two deaths and three additional cases that

were suspected to have been acquired out of state. In 2005 there were 21 human WNV cases and

one death. As of July, 2006, no human infections of WNV have been reported in Florida for

2006 (FDOH 2006b).









During the initial two years of WNV activity there were human cases throughout Florida

with no discernable pattern of transmission or centralized outbreak foci. In 2003 there were

human cases throughout Florida but 66% (61/93) of human cases were from the northwest region

of the Florida Panhandle. In 2004 and 2005 there were urban foci in Dade and Broward

Counties (24 of 39 human cases) and in Pinellas County (18 of 21 human cases), respectively

(FDOH 2006b).

In humans, WNV is capable of causing either a febrile illness known as West Nile fever

(Watson et al. 2004b) or a neuroinvasive disease such as meningitis, encephalitis, or acute

flaccid paralysis leading to death (Petersen and Marfin 2002). Symptoms of West Nile fever

include fever, malaise, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, eye pain, headache, myalgia, rash, and

lymphadenopathy (Petersen and Marfin 2002) with symptoms lasting 3 to 6 days or sometimes

longer (Watson et al. 2004b). Symptoms of neuroinvasive WNV disease include fever, muscle

weakness, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and changes in mental status (Petersen and

Martin 2002). A seroprevalence study in New York City during 1999 determined that

approximately 20% of WNV infected persons developed febrile illness and less than 1%

developed neuroinvasive disease (Mostashari et al. 2001). Mostashari et al. (2001) estimated

that for every one meningoencephalitis case there were 140 symptomatic and mildly

symptomatic cases. In a large scale screening of blood donations Busch et al. (2006) found the

incidence of WNV neuroinvasive disease to inapparent infection in humans to be 1 in 256.

Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus

Transmission of Eastern equine encephalitis virus has only occurred in focal or sporadic

outbreaks in Florida (Bigler et al. 1976, Day and Stark 1996b, Morris 1992). Most cases of

EEEV in humans are confined to the panhandle and north-central Florida (Day and Stark 1996b).

The first documented human case of EEEV in Florida was in 1952, but there were unconfirmed









reports of human cases in Florida prior to 1952 (Bigler et al. 1976). To date there have been 68

reported human cases of EEEV in Florida (CDC 2006a). Four human cases of EEEV have

occurred in Orange County with one case in 1973, 1990, 1995, and 2003 (FDOH 2006a).

Eastern equine encephalitis virus is a severely debilitating disease, causing death in

approximately 50 to 90% of symptomatic human victims, with most deaths being adults (Scott

and Weaver 1989, Villari et al. 1995). Symptoms of encephalitic EEEV infection are high fever

(390 to 410C), irritability, restlessness, drowsiness, muscle tremors, neck rigidity, anorexia,

vomiting, diarrhea, headache, cyanosis, convulsions, and coma (Morris 1992). Villari et al.

(1995) found adults that survive encephalitic EEEV infection often have full recovery but

children less than fifteen often suffer lifelong debilitations caused by persistent and severe

neurologic disease. Human cases can occur throughout the year in Florida but generally occur

between May and August (Bigler et al. 1976). Most human cases of EEEV are rural in

distribution and generally associated with wooded areas adjacent to swamps and marshes (Morris

1992).

Western Equine Encephalitis Virus: Highlands J Virus

Western equine encephalitis virus (family Togaviridae, genus Alphavirus, WEEV) has

been isolated from Culiseta melanura (Coquillett), birds, and horses in Florida (Bigler et al.

1976, Henderson et al. 1962, Karabatsos et al. 1988). It was later determined that all isolates of

WEEV in the Eastern United States were Highlands J (HJ) virus, an antigenically distinct virus

that is part of the WEEV complex (Calisher et al. 1980, Karabatsos et al. 1988). Highlands J

virus has no known public or veterinary health importance (Karabatsos et al. 1988). The primary

vector of HJ virus in the eastern United States is Cs. melanura (Karabatsos et al. 1988, Morris

1988). Highlands J virus can complicate avian serosurvey results as it cross reacts with EEEV in

the Hemaggluttination Inhibition (HI) test. It was not until 2004 that HJ was included in the









laboratory testing of EEEV positive sentinel chickens in Florida. Plaque reduction neutralization

tests (PRNT) are now used to differentiate between HJ and EEEV (L. M. Stark, personal

communication).

Culex nigripalpus and Virus Transmission in Florida

St. Louis Encephalitis Virus

Culex nigripalpus is the most abundant Culex (Culex) species in peninsular Florida

(Edman 1974). An outbreak of SLEV in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida in 1962 resulted in 22

of 23 isolations of SLEV from wild Cx. nigripalpus, establishing this species as the primary

epidemic vector of SLEV in south Florida (Dow et al. 1964). Provost (1969) observed that Cx.

nigripalpus activity was directly influenced by humidity with nights of 90% humidity or greater

triggering the greatest amount of flight activity. He hypothesized that rainless periods during the

Cx. nigripalpus breeding season punctuated by intermittent rainfall leads to SLEV transmission

(Provost 1969).

Day and Curtis (1999) defined four phases of SLEV transmission in subtropical Florida:

maintenance, amplification, early season transmission, and late season transmission phases. The

maintenance phase occurs from December through March and SLEV transmission is maintained

at low levels between avian hosts and mosquitoes. The amplification phase occurs from April

through June and coincides with the avian nesting season. Early season transmission of SLEV

occurs from July through September at which time the first human cases of SLEV may be

reported. Late season transmission of SLEV occurs from October through December when more

human cases of SLEV may be reported. St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission to humans

typically ceases by the end of December (Day and Curtis 1999).

Winter and springtime (maintenance and amplification phases) drought restricts Cx.

nigripalpus to wooded hammocks where many avian species nest (Day 2001). This brings Cx.









nigripalpus into contact with adult and nestling birds (Day 2001). Culex nigripalpus had higher

blood feeding success on nestling than adult ciconiiform birds most likely due to the lack of

plumage on nestling birds (Kale et al. 1972). Nestling birds have been shown to circulate a

higher viremia of SLEV for a longer duration than adult birds and display fewer defensive

behaviors making them more likely to infect mosquitoes (Scott et al. 1988, Scott et al. 1990a).

Culex nigripalpus shifts host preference from avian hosts during January through May to

mammalian hosts during June through November or December (Edman 1974, Edman and Taylor

1968). The mammalian feeding preference shift by Cx. nigripalpus coincides with the

occurrence of epidemic activity of SLEV in humans during early and late season transmission

(Day and Curtis 1999, Edman 1974). The Cx. nigripalpus host preference shift from avian to

mammal is directly linked with rainfall (Edman 1974).

Day and Curtis (1989) showed that Cx. nigripalpus blood-feeding and oviposition (Day et

al. 1990) behavior was regulated by heavy rainfall (>30mm). When heavy rainfalls occur every

10 to 14 days, parous Cx. nigripalpus were forced to delay oviposition. This allowed time for

the extrinsic incubation of SLEV virus resulting in infected salivary glands of the mosquito. The

next heavy rainfall triggered the infective Cx. nigripalpus to oviposit and then blood feed,

potentially infecting further hosts (Day et al. 1990). This amplifying cycle continues until

minimum infection rates of SLEV in Cx. nigripalpus are >1:1000 at which point the likelihood

of incidental human infection can reach epidemic levels (Day and Stark 2000). Once the drought

ends, the repeated rainfall raises humidity levels and Cx. nigripalpus disperse from the

hammocks furthering the potential of SLEV transmission to humans (Shaman et al. 2002).

West Nile Virus

Culex nigripalpus has been incriminated in transmission of WNV in Florida and was

suspected of being the primary epidemic vector in 2001 (Rutledge et al. 2003). Culex









nigripalpus was capable of transmitting WNV in the laboratory (Turell et al. 2005). Two WNV

infected pools of Cx. nigripalpus were found in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al.

2005a). The same mechanisms that make Cx. nigripalpus an efficient vector of SLEV were

thought to make it an efficient vector of WNV (Shaman et al. 2005).

Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus

Culex nigripalpus was suggested as a possible bridge vector for EEEV in Florida by Nayar

(1982). Eastern equine encephalitis virus was isolated from sixteen pools of Cx. nigripalpus in

the Tampa Bay area from 1962 to 1967 (Taylor et al. 1969) and from 94 pools from 1962 to

1970 (Wellings et al. 1972). Three often pools of Cx. nigripalpus were positive for EEEV

during a focal outbreak of EEEV in emus in Volusia County, Florida in 1994 (Day and Stark

1996a). Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus has also been isolated from Cx. nigripalpus in

Trinidad (Downs et al. 1959). Sudia and Chamberlain (1964) found Cx. nigripalpus to be a poor

vector of EEEV under laboratory conditions. Culex nigripalpus is often collected from swamp

foci with known EEEV activity in Orange County (OCMCD data). The abundance of Cx.

nigripalpus in swamp habitat, generalist feeding habits (Edman 1974) and rainfall mediated host-

feeding patterns (Day and Curtis 1989) increase its potential as a vector of EEEV in Florida.

Other Potential Vectors of Arboviruses in Florida

Chamberlain (1958) used five criteria for the incrimination of potential vectors of

arboviruses which were simplified and restated by Vaidyanathan et al. (1997): history of

frequent virus isolation; flight range overlapping host habitat; host seeking and blood feeding

coinciding with disease incidence; varied host choice; and laboratory demonstration of vector

competence. Many of the mosquito species in Florida suspected as potential arbovirus vectors

have not fulfilled all five of the requirements to be incriminated as vectors of arboviruses.









Potential Vectors of St. Louis Encephalitis Virus

Culexpipiens quinquefasciatus Say and Culex salinarius Coquillett are the second most

abundant species of Culex (Culex) in Florida (Edman 1974). Both reach peak abundance in late

winter and spring in south Florida (O'Meara and Evans 1983, Provost 1969). Culex

quinquefasciatus is a generalist feeder that frequently feeds on man and domestic animals such

as cats, dogs, and chickens (Edman 1974). Culex quinquefasciatus was a competent vector of

SLEV in the laboratory (Chamberlain et al. 1959). Culex quinquefasciatus is the primary vector

of SLEV in the southeastern United States (Tsai and Mitchell 1989) and in the absence of Cx.

nigripalpus, it is most likely the vector of SLEV in northern Florida. Culex quinquefasciatus

was the suspected vector of the 1980 focal outbreak of SLEV in Fort Walton Beach, Florida

(McCaig et al. 1994). Culex salinarius is a generalist feeder that was less associated with man

and domestic animals than Cx. quinquefasciatus (Edman 1974). Culex salinarius, a highly

competent vector of SLEV in the laboratory, (Chamberlain 1958, Chamberlain et al. 1959) may

be an enzootic vector of SLEV in Florida (Zyzak et al. 2002).

Culex restuans Theobald is a competent vector of SLEV in the laboratory (Chamberlain et

al. 1959). The host preference of Cx. restuans appears to vary by locality but was thought to be

primarily ornithophilic in the United States (Edman 1974, Mitchell et al. 1980). Culex restuans is

most abundant in Florida during late fall, winter and spring which makes it most likely an

enzootic vector of SLEV during the maintenance and amplification phases of SLEV transmission

(Edman 1974). When summertime temperatures drop below 200C Cx. restuans may become

active and aging mosquitoes may vector SLEV (Reiter 1988).

There have been no documented isolations of SLEV from Cx. quinquefasciatus, Cx.

restuans, or Cx. salinarius in Florida. This limits their incrimination as vectors of SLEV in









Florida by not fulfilling the first criteria of vector incrimination (Chambelain 1958): history of

frequent virus isolation.

Potential Vectors of West Nile virus

Of the sixty species of mosquitoes that have tested positive for WNV in

North America, thirty-eight species occur in Florida (CDC 2006b). Isolation of WNV with

various polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques only shows that mosquitoes were infected

with WNV (Rutledge et al. 2003). Isolation of WNV from mosquitoes does not establish their

capability of transmitting WNV to vertebrate hosts (Rutledge et al. 2003). Of the thirty-eight

mosquito species that had WNV isolated from them and occur in Florida, sixteen were tested in

the laboratory for vector competence (Turell et al. 2005).

Culex restuans, Cx. quinquefasciatus, and Cx. salinarius were found to be efficient vectors

of WNV in the laboratory (Turell et al. 2005). The varied host preference of Cx.

quinquefasciatus and Cx. salinarius (Edman 1974) make these species potential enzootic or

bridge vectors of WNV. Five WNV infected pools of Cx. quinquefasciatus were found in

Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). Four WNV infected pools of Cx. salinarius

were found in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a). The ornithophilic feeding

behavior of Cx. restuans (Edman 1974) makes this species a potential enzootic vector of WNV.

Aedes albopictus (Skuse) and Ochlerotatus triseriatus (Say) were found to be efficient

vectors of WNV in the laboratory and their mammalophilic host feeding habits make them

potential bridge vectors (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005). Aedes albopictus and Oc.

triseriatus are very localized mosquitoes (flight range 200 m), so involvement in WNV

transmission may be limited to areas where Culex spp. are present and transmitting WNV to

amplifying hosts (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005). Aedes vexans (Meigen), Culiseta

inornata (Williston), and Ochlerotatus canadensis canadensis (Theobald) are mammalophagic,









have flight ranges of 2 km or greater, capable of WNV transmission in the laboratory and may

play minor roles as bridge vectors of WNV to humans in Florida (Turell et al. 2005).

Three WNV infected pools of Cs. melanura were found in Jefferson County, FL in 2001

(Godsey et al. 2005a). Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) was a poor vector of WNV in the

laboratory (Turell et al. 2005). Culiseta melanura feeds primarily on birds (Edman et al. 1972b)

and may be an enzootic vector of WNV in Florida.

West Nile virus has only recently been introduced to Florida and there have been very few

studies demonstrating WNV transmission to vertebrates in the field, the exception being Cx.

nigripalpus (Rutledge et al. 2003). Laboratory studies of vector competence and field isolations

of WNV only fulfill part of the requirements for vector incrimination (Chamberlain 1958). More

field studies on WNV transmission in Florida are required to fulfill all requirements of vector

incrimination for the species discussed in this section (Chamberlain 1958).

Potential Vectors of Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus

Culiseta melanura is the primary enzootic vector of EEEV in Florida (Mitchell et al. 1996,

Morris 1992, Scott and Weaver 1989). Culiseta melanura breeding tends to be restricted to

swamp habitats (Morris 1992). Most human cases of EEEV occur within five miles of swamp

foci (Morris 1992). In Florida, Cs. melanura was found to be ornithophilic, feeding

predominantly on passerine birds (Edman et al. 1972b). Since Cs. melanura is ornithophilic it is

considered an enzootic vector of EEEV and other species of mosquitoes must serve as bridge

vectors to humans and horses (Edman et al. 1972b).

Numerous species of mosquitoes that have been suggested as potential bridge vectors of

EEEV in the United States occur in Florida including Coquillettidiaperturbans (Walker), Ae.

vexans, Ochlerotatus sollicitans (Walkeri), Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab), Cx. salinarius, Oc.

canadensis, Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, and Aedes albopictus (Edman et al. 1972b, Scott









and Weaver 1989, Scott et al. 1990b). Bridge vectors of EEEV to humans and horses vary from

location to location (Crans and Schulze 1986). In New Jersey, Oc. sollicitans is the primary

bridge vector of EEEV to humans in coastal areas and Cq. perturbans is the primary epizootic

vector of EEEV to horses at inland sites (Crans and McCuiston 1993, Crans and Schulze 1986).

Eastern equine encephalitis virus was isolated from Cx. salinarius from Tampa Bay,

Florida (Wellings et al. 1972) and other locations in the eastern United States (Scott and Weaver

1989). Cx. salinarius was able to transmit EEEV fourteen days post-infection in the laboratory

(Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Culex salinarius may be a potential bridge vector because its

winter/spring abundance in Florida means that aging Cx. salinarius would be present during

EEEV transmission periods (Zyzak et al. 2002). The generalist feeding habits of Cx. salinarius

(Edman 1974) make it a potential enzootic and bridge vector of EEEV.

Both Oc. canadensis and An. quadrimaculatus were capable of transmitting EEEV in the

laboratory (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Both species are mammalophilic and could potentially

transmit EEEV to horses or humans (Edman 1971, Vaidyanathan et al. 1997).

Neither Ae. vexans nor Oc. sollicitans are commonly found near swamp foci in Florida,

which limits their potential involvement as bridge vectors of EEEV in Florida (Edman 1974).

Aedes vexans was not capable of transmitting EEEV in the laboratory (Vaidyanathan et al. 1997).

Minimum infection rates (MIR) of Cx. erraticus for EEEV in central Alabama were 3.2

per 1000 (Cupp et al. 2003). Positive Cx. erraticus pools were found from mid-June to mid-

September (Cupp et al. 2003), the same time period that EEEV is most active in Florida (Bigler

et al. 1976). An isolation of EEEV from Cx. erraticus in Polk County, Florida was made in 1993

(Mitchell et al. 1996). Chamberlain et al. (1954) found Cx. erraticus to be a competent vector of

EEEV in the laboratory. Robertson et al. (1993) documented Cx. erraticus feeding on humans in









North Carolina. These findings suggest that Cx. erraticus may play a role as an enzootic or

bridge vector of EEEV transmission in Florida.

Aedes albopictus was found naturally infected with EEEV in Polk County, Florida (MIR of

1.5 per 1000) (Mitchell et al. 1992). Aedes albopictus was capable of transmitting EEEV in the

laboratory (Scott et al. 1990b). Junkyards and tire piles in rural and urban areas near swamp foci

may harbor populations ofAe. albopictus (OCMCD data) and may lead to focal amplification of

EEEV (Mitchell et al. 1996).

Coquillettidiaperturbans has been incriminated as a bridge vector of EEEV in the eastern

United States (Morris 1988, Scott and Weaver 1989). Coquillettidiaperturbans was the vector

of EEEV in an epizootic among horses in New Jersey in 1983 (Crans and Schulze 1986).

Wellings (1972) obtained five EEEV isolates from Cq. perturbans in Florida. In Florida, 9% of

blood meals from Cq. perturbans were avian and 91% were of mammalian origin (Edman 1971).

Coquillettidiaperturbans was able to transmit EEEV seven days post-infection in the laboratory

(Vaidyanathan et al. 1997). Coquillettidiaperturbans feeds on humans in Florida (Provost

1969). These findings suggest that Cq. perturbans may be a potential bridge vector of EEEV to

humans and horses in Florida.

Surveillance of Arboviruses

Arboviral surveillance is the systematic collection of data regarding arboviral activity to

predict or recognize epidemics and assess the size and progression of current epidemics (Bowen

and Francy 1980). The objective of arbovirus surveillance is to predict the likelihood of

arbovirus transmission to humans so that public health measures and mosquito control activity

may limit or abort human outbreaks (Eldridge 1987). There are two types of arbovirus

surveillance methods: passive and active. Passive surveillance is the accumulation of

unsolicited information concerning arboviral infection in humans or other vertebrates whereas









active surveillance is the intentional collection of specimens or data. There are four methods for

conducting active arboviral surveillance: detection of human disease or infection, observation of

weather patterns, surveillance of vector populations, and the testing of non-human vertebrates

(Bowen and Francy 1980).

Human Surveillance

Human surveillance for arboviral encephalitis incidence is conducted by public health

officials. A passive human surveillance system requires local physicians and hospital staff to

record and report suspect human cases of arboviral infection to local health departments. In the

past, cases were not being reported in a timely manner or reported case information was not

assimilated properly, allowing epidemics to go unnoticed (Chamberlain 1980). In many regions

where there is little money for mosquito control operations and arboviral surveillance, the only

affordable method for arboviral surveillance is human surveillance (Bowen and Francy 1980,

CDC 2003).

Once public health officials have determined that an arboviral epidemic is imminent or

already in progress the most common measures of control are emergency aerial adulticide

spraying and public service announcements (PSA's). The drawback to human surveillance is

that arboviral amplification is already at high levels in vector and amplifying host populations by

the time incidental human cases are reported. The delayed vector control will likely have little

impact on epidemic transmission if most arboviral transmission has already occurred (Nelson et

al. 1983). Day and Lewis (1992) discussed the difficulties of human surveillance due to the

several week time lag between the date of onset, the first (acute phase) and second (convalescent

phase) blood samples and the diagnostic tests. Nelson et al. (1983) suggested that clinically

suspected SLEV cases should be reported to reduce the reaction time of mosquito control efforts.









Human arboviral case infections in the United States are defined as possible, probable, and

confirmed cases. Possible and probable human case definitions of arboviral disease require the

display of symptoms associated with the disease and positive antibody results from one acute or

convalescent human sera, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or other body fluids. Confirmed human case

definition requires the display of symptoms and positive results with a fourfold increase between

acute and convalescent serum, CSF, or other body fluid or the direct isolation of arbovirus or

demonstration of arboviral genomic sequences in human tissue, blood, CSF, or other body fluid

(Petersen and Marfin 2002).

In Florida human diseases are monitored by the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) and

County Health Departments (CHD). Human sera are screened for arboviruses with a

hemagluttination inhibition (HI) assay and all positives are confirmed with an immunoglobulin

M-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA). A plaque reduction

neutralization test (PRNT) is used to differentiate between WNV and SLEV. Cerebrospinal fluid

samples are tested for WNV with MAC-ELISA. All tests are performed free of charge at the

DOH Bureau of Laboratory Services in Tampa or Jacksonville (Blackmore et al. 2003). Human

case reports are entered into Merlin, a real time electronic reporting system for all diseases that

affect humans (FDOH 2005). All probable and confirmed human cases are then entered into

Arbo-NET, a cooperative West Nile virus surveillance database and reported to the Centers for

Disease Control (Marfin et al. 2001). Even with a nationwide human surveillance system the

data generated are problematic because of the variability and inaccuracies in disease reporting.

This makes the estimation of disease incidence and the interpretation of potential risks difficult

(Brownstein et al. 2004).









Weather Patterns

Weather patterns that preceded past arboviral epidemics can be analyzed to formulate

predictions of future arboviral transmission potential. These predictions can provide an early

warning of pending arboviral epidemics so that public health officials and mosquito control

programs can increase surveillance and control efforts to reduce epidemic potential. Weather

patterns are not indicative of arboviral presence or amplification in mosquito vectors or

vertebrate hosts. Field isolations of arbovirus in mosquitoes or vertebrate hosts or isolation of

arboviral antibodies from sentinel and wild animals is required for confirmation of viral activity.

Tracking weather patterns is an easy and low cost method that when used in combination with

human surveillance, is the best alternative for areas lacking a budget for a standing mosquito

control and surveillance operations (Bowen and Francy 1980).

Recently, several models have been created which correlate water table depth and surface

wetness in peninsular Florida with SLEV or WNV transmission to birds and humans (Shaman et

al. 2002, 2003a, 2004a, 2004b, 2005). A topographically based hydrology model for south-

central Florida was created to predict surface level wetness (Shaman et al. 2002). This model

was validated using groundwater well measurements and surface water levels throughout Florida

(Shaman et al. 2003b). Sentinel chicken seroconversion data from 1978 to 2002 in Indian River

County and the topographically based hydrology model were used to assess past epidemic and

non-epidemic levels of SLEV transmission with the expectation that this model will be able to

forecast future SLEV epidemics (Shaman et al. 2004b).

Vector Surveillance

Vector surveillance for arbovirus transmission potential can involve monitoring of

mosquito abundance, parity status of the mosquito population and minimum infection rates of

mosquitoes. Vector surveillance can be costly to a mosquito control district or public health









department which means that not all three factors can always be assessed (Bowen and Francy

1980, Scott et al. 2001).

Monitoring of Mosquito Abundance

There are many techniques available to assess mosquito populations (Service 1976).

Long-term baseline data sets of mosquito abundance for each trap site with consistent sampling

methods demonstrate fluctuations in mosquito abundance over time (Day and Lewis 1991). In

peninsular Florida the primary arboviral vector of concern, Cx. nigripalpus, can be readily

caught by light traps, CDC baited light traps, ground aspirations, avian baited lard can traps (Day

and Lewis 1991), and sentinel chicken coop exit traps (T. P. Breaud and D. A. Shroyer, personal

communication). Indian River County Mosquito Control District (Vero Beach, FL) has

discontinued the use of light traps in favor of aspiration of resting mosquitoes (Day and Lewis

1991). Mosquitoes collected by aspiration can be analyzed to determine mosquito population

dynamics such as abundance, migration, blood feeding, parity, and age (Day and Lewis 1991).

Mosquito abundance has been correlated with arbovirus transmission with mixed success.

In California, Reeves (1968) predicted that if Culex tarsalis Coquillett light trap catches were

kept below ten mosquitoes per night SLEV human cases would not occur. Blackmore et al.

(1962) found no correlation between Cx. tarsalis abundance and SLEV or WEEV transmission

in Colorado. Olson et al. (1979) found that SLEV and WEEV transmission was affected by

varied abundance of Cx. tarsalis in rural and urban California habitats. The 1961 SLEV

epidemic in Tampa Bay, FL was characterized by high transmission rates to humans, low

numbers of complaint calls and low populations of mosquitoes in urban areas (Mulrennan 1969,

Rogers 1969). Recent focal outbreaks of WNV in the eastern United States have been associated

with low densities of Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus (CDC 2003). These disparities in

correlation of mosquito abundance and epidemic transmission render mosquito abundance an









invalid predictor of arboviral transmission and therefore a poor surveillance technique.

Mosquito abundance alone may be a poor predictor of epidemic transmission but when

combined with parity information it can be important for the timing and assessment of mosquito

control efforts during arboviral epidemics (Day 1991).

Parity Analysis

Parity analysis is a technique that is used to estimate the physiological age of an

anautogenous (mosquito that requires a blood meal before the development of eggs) mosquito.

Parity analysis involves dissection and examination of the ovaries for the presence or absence of

tracheolar skeins. Coiled tracheole skeins indicate a nulliparous (has not laid eggs) mosquito.

Extended tracheoles indicate a parous (has laid eggs) mosquito (Crans and McCuiston 1993). A

parous mosquito indicates that it has obtained at least one blood meal and may have lived long

enough to become infective. A period of time, known as the extrinsic incubation period, must

pass after the ingestion of blood before a mosquito can infect another host (Foster and Walker

2002). The process of extrinsic incubation requires the ingestion of arbovirus by a mosquito

vector, multiplication of arbovirus in the midgut cells, escape from the midgut, dissemination

throughout the hemocoel, and infection of the salivary glands (Foster and Walker 2002).

Assessment of parity status in mosquito populations provides an estimate of how many

mosquitoes might be infective (Bowen and Francy 1980).

Since climatological regulation of Cx. nigripalpus oviposition is crucial for SLEV

epidemics (Day et al. 1990) the determination of parity status of Cx. nigripalpus populations

during an epidemic is important for the timing of adult mosquito control operations (Day 1991).

Minimum Infection Rates in Mosquitoes

Virus isolation from mosquitoes is a part of vector incrimination (Chamberlain 1958) and

has been used for the detection of new arboviruses in an area (Scott et al. 2001). Virus isolation









is often conducted during arboviral epidemics but rarely during non-epidemic periods (Bowen

and Francy 1980, Shroyer 1991).

Minimum infection rates (MIR) are determined by the collection, identification, pooling,

and processing of mosquitoes for arbovirus isolation. Reeves et al. (1961) calculated minimum

infection rates using Equation 1-1.

Number of positive pools x 1,000 (Equation 1-1)
Number of mosquitoes tested


The MIR only represents the minimum number of infected mosquitoes, not the minimum

number of infective mosquitoes. Similar to mosquito abundance data, there must be baseline

data of MIRs during non-epidemic periods to understand what epidemic MIR levels represent as

a risk assessment of arboviral infection to humans (Shroyer 1991).

Transmission rates of arboviruses to sentinel vertebrates more accurately reflect the

potential for mosquitoes to transmit arboviruses. To determine transmission rates sentinel hosts

must be placed in the field, determine the number of seroconversions in hosts, and capture as

many mosquitoes that come to feed on the hosts as possible (Reeves et al. 1961). Reeves et al.

(1961) calculated transmission rates using Equation 1-2.

Number of birds infected x 1,000 (Equation 1-2)
Total mosquitoes feeding

Reeves et al. (1961) found both SLEV and WEEV virus infection rates in Cx. tarsalis to be

higher than transmission rates to sentinel chickens. Rutledge et al. (2003) found WNV infection

rates in Cx. nigripalpus to be higher than WNV transmission rates to sentinel chickens. One

factor attributed to higher MIRs than transmission rates is the extrinsic incubation period.

Mosquitoes may be infected with arbovirus which would raise the MIR but sufficient time may

not have passed for the mosquito to be infective which would not increase the transmission rate.









Shroyer (1991) found that during non-epidemic periods the MIRs for SLEV in Indian

River County, FL were very low. It was very difficult to statistically determine confidence

intervals and sampling error was very high because of the low frequencies of SLEV, which

makes direct estimates of human risk from MIRs difficult (Shroyer 1991). While isolation of

arboviruses from mosquito vectors is important for vector incrimination (Chamberlain 1958), it

is of little value as a surveillance tool to predict the threat of human arboviral infection in Florida

(Shroyer 1991).

Non-Human Vertebrate Surveillance

Surveillance of non-human vertebrates involves the testing of blood or tissue specimens

from vertebrates for the presence of arboviruses or antibodies to arboviruses (Bowen and Francy

1980). Surveillance of non-human vertebrates uses wild, domestic and sentinel animals. Wild

animal surveillance requires the collection of live or dead wild vertebrates and obtainment of

serum or tissue for detection of serologic or virologic evidence of arboviruses. Domestic animal

surveillance uses animals associated with humans that are exposed to natural vector populations

(i.e., backyard chicken flocks, cattle). Sentinel animals are those that are purposely exposed to

natural vector populations in a permanent location and routinely tested for antibodies to

arboviruses. Any vertebrate surveillance system used requires years of baseline data during

epidemic and non-epidemic periods to determine antibody and virus isolation thresholds for

prediction and assessment of arboviral activity (Bowen and Francy 1980, Day 1989).

Live, Wild Vertebrate Surveillance

Live, wild vertebrate surveillance requires the active capture of the vertebrate and

collection of serum or secretions that may contain virus or antibodies to the arbovirus of concern.

Virus isolation is sometimes performed in conjunction with antibody detection to establish

potential vertebrate reservoir and amplification hosts (Scott 1988). The use of mobile, wild









animals to monitor arboviral activity provides a greater range of area to be sampled per sampling

effort (Komar 2001, Trainer 1970).

Wild bird surveillance

Wild birds are the primary vertebrates that are tested for serosurveys and virus isolation in

eastern United States as they are the primary reservoir and amplification hosts of EEEV, SLEV,

WNV, and HJ. Wild bird surveillance can target either peridomestic birds associated with

epidemic transmission cycles (Gruwell et al. 2000) or non-peridomestic birds associated with

enzootic transmission cycles (Crans et al. 1994). Peridomestic birds associated with epidemic

transmission cycles are those that have been introduced to the United States such as pigeons

(Columba livia), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus),

Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), and European Starlings (Sturnis vulgaris) (Allison et al.

2004, Bowen and Francy 1980, Gruwell et al. 2000, Komar et al. 1999, Komar et al. 2001,

Reisen et al. 2004). When virus levels rise sharply in peridomestic birds, there is an imminent

threat to humans (McLean et al. 1983). Bowen and Francy (1980) suggest that the risk of

arboviral transmission of SLEV to humans is "high when the wild bird antibody prevalence in

urban settings is above 15 percent." The level of risk of arbovirus transmission to humans in

relation to antibody prevalence in wild birds varies based on the vector/host/disease relationships

of the region. When a bird population involved in epizootic transmission cycles has high levels

of non-immune birds the likelihood of an epizootic is greater as there are many susceptible birds

present (Day 2001). The strength of wild bird surveillance is that it can accurately sample the

arboviral activity of amplification hosts over a wide area as opposed to sentinel birds which

represent focal arbovirus transmission in a fixed location.

Direct arbovirus isolation is rare but it does provide the best indicator of vertebrate

involvement in transmission cycles (Scott 1988). As direct virus isolation is rare, many









investigators have relied on antibody surveys to determine past arbovirus infection history of

wild birds. Birds with high field seroprevalances only indicate past infections, not a greater

potential for viral amplification. Species of birds with high field seropevalance need to have

laboratory studies of viremia titers and antibody responses to arboviral challenge to determine

their importance as arborviral amplifiers (Scott 1988).

Birds hatched the year that a serosurvey was conducted show recent arbovirus transmission

(Beveroth et al. 2006, Holden et al. 1973). Birds less than one month old with low level

antibody response most likely have maternal antibodies present (CDC 2003). Birds older than

one year may have been infected before the year of the serosurvey. In the eastern United States,

hatching year pigeons and House Sparrows are often sampled for SLEV and WNV virus

isolation (Allison et al. 2004, Bowen and Francy 1980, Komar et al. 2001). Large populations of

nestling pigeons and House Sparrows occur in peridomestic habitat and an increase in arbovirus

isolation rate from these species can predict transmission to humans (Holden et al. 1973).

Previously banded and blood sampled birds that are recaptured provide a precise time frame of

arboviral infection. Unfortunately there are generally low recapture rates during serosurveys

(Day and Stark 1999, Scott et al. 2001).

When wild bird surveillance data are collected in a systematic manner, wild bird

surveillance can provide an early warning of arbovirus transmission to humans (Bowen and

Francy 1980, Holden et al. 1973).

Wild mammal surveillance

Wild mammals, primarily rodents, have been used for serosurveys and virus isolation of

California Encephalitis virus complex (family Bunyaviridae, genus Bunyavirus, CEV),

Everglades virus (family Togaviridae, genus Alphavirus, EVEV), EEEV, and SLEV in Florida

(Bigler and Hoff 1975, Chamberlain et al. 1969, Day et al. 1996, Jennings et al. 1968, Wellings









et al. 1972). Wild mammals are the reservoir hosts for CEV (Bigler and Hoff 1975) and EVEV

(Day et al. 1996), possibly SLEV (Bigler and Hoff 1975, Day et al. 1995, Herbold et al. 1983),

and are incidental, dead end hosts for WNV and EEEV.

Everglades virus is only found in south Florida (Calisher and Karabatsos 1988). The

primary reservoir hosts of EVEV are rodents, especially Hispid Cotton Rats (Sigmodon hispidus)

(Coffey et al. 2004) and Cotton Mice (Peromyscus gossypinus) (Chamberlain et al. 1969).

Rodents most commonly found infected with virus or presence of antibodies to EVEV are the

Cotton Rat, Rattus sp., and Cotton Mice (Bigler and Hoff 1975, Chamberlain et al. 1969, Day et

al. 1996). In addition to rodents, the raccoon (Procyon lotor) was commonly found positive for

antibodies to EVEV in South Florida (Bigler 1971). Clinical EVEV disease in humans is rare in

South Florida and there is no routine surveillance of wild mammals (Sudia et al. 1969).

St. Louis encephalitis virus has been isolated from several wild bat species in the United

States (Allen et al. 1970, Herbold et al. 1983). Antibodies to SLEV virus have been found in

deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Trainer 1970), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), opossums

(Didelphis marsupialis), and raccoons (Bigler 1971). The raccoon specimens were obtained

during rabies surveys and demonstrates the benefits of testing mammals for arboviruses that

were passively obtained from other wild animal collections (Bigler 1971). Day et al. (1995)

found 31% (59 /189), armadillos positive for SLEV antibodies in Florida.

Wild mammal populations have not been associated with WNV amplification in the United

States. Pilipski et al. (2004) found 2% (2/83) bats positive for WNV antibodies in New Jersey

and New York. One percent (2/149) of Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) from

Louisiana were positive for WNV antibodies (Davis et al. 2005). Neither Big brown bats

(Eptesicusfuscus) or the Mexican free-tailed bats are likely amplification hosts of WNV because









of absent or low viremia titers (Davis et al. 2005). In laboratory tests, the Eastern cottontail

rabbit, Sylvilagusfloridanus, developed sufficient WNV viremia (>105 CID5os/mL) to infect

feeding mosquitoes (Tiawsirisup et al. 2005). Cottontail rabbits are found in peridomestic

habitats and could play a role in peridomestic transmission cycles of WNV (Tiawsirisup et al.

2005).

Wild reptile surveillance

Reptiles have been suggested as potential overwintering hosts for EEEV and WEEV

because of their long lasting viremias (Bowen 1977, Gebhardt and Hill 1960, Hayes et al. 1964)

but have not been used in routine surveillance operations in the United States. This is due to the

safety risks associated with the capture (e.g., snakes and alligators) and difficulty of bleeding

reptiles (e.g., turtles) (Sudia et al. 1970). Klenk and Komar (2003) found the Green Iguana

(Iguana iguana), Florida Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), and Red-ear Slider

(Trachymes script elegens) to be unlikely reservoir hosts for WNV because of low tittered

viremia < 103.2 PFU/mL of serum. Young alligators circulate WNV viremia titers as high as

106.2 PFU/mL for a duration of one to two weeks which makes them potential amplifying hosts

(Klenk et al. 2004). The role that wild alligators play in WNV epidemiology has not yet been

determined (Klenk et al. 2004).

Dead, Wild Bird Surveillance

West Nile virus epidemics in the United States have been characterized by high mortality

in American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) which has led to the development of dead bird

surveillance (Eidson 2001, Eidson et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Johnson et al. 2006, Julian et al.

2002, Komar 2001, Marfin et al. 2001). Dead bird surveillance is a passive system that is

established by state and local health departments for the public to report dead birds (Eidson

2001). Dead bird surveillance systems compile dead bird sightings, and dead bird testing









involves collection and testing dead bird specimens for West Nile virus infection (Eidson 2001).

Results from both dead bird sightings and dead bird testing systems are tabulated and reported by

county health departments to Arbo-NET (Marfin et al. 2001).

Collection of dead or dying bird specimens for testing of WNV can be used to determine

WNV presence in an area. Although this system is considered active it still relies on passive

public reports for the location of specimens (Eidson 2001). By 2006 the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention had reported 285 species of birds that tested positive for WNV (CDC

2006c). In the northern United States crows have been found to be the most sensitive indicator

of WNV, whereas in the southern United States Blue Jays have been the most sensitive indicator

of WNV (CDC 2003).

Problems with dead bird testing include: delays in test results (Eidson 2001), reliance on

public interest for dead bird reports (Eidson 2001, Julian et al. 2002, Ward et al. 2006), the

location the dead bird was found may not be the area that the bird was infected (CDC 2003),

dead bird surveillance data from different areas with different collection protocols are difficult to

compare regionally (CDC 2003), and the inability to estimate incidence of virus infection in the

wild bird population (Eidson 2001).

In Florida, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) manages a bird

mortality database. This system allows the public, county health departments, or FWCC

personnel to report dead bird sightings. Dead birds are necropsied and tested by reverse

transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for WNV at the DOH Bureau of Laboratory

Services, Tampa (Blackmore et al. 2003).

There have been numerous retrospective studies demonstrating the effectiveness of dead

bird sightings or dead bird testing systems at foreshadowing human WNV incidence in the









northeastern United States (Eidson et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2005; Guptill et al. 2003, Julian et

al. 2002, Watson et al. 2004a). Unfortunately dead bird surveillance and dead bird testing have

been implemented in many areas without proper real-time analysis of the data collected. This

leads to systems that merely detect WNV in a given area but do not function as surveillance

because they cannot predict the risk of human infection (Guptill et al. 2003).

Domestic Animal Surveillance

Domestic animal surveillance is the use of domesticated or farmed animals for either

passive or active arbovirus surveillance. Passive animal surveillance relies on local veterinarians

to diagnose infected animals and report cases to animal morbidity reporting systems or public

health officials (Nichols and Bigler 1967). In Florida, specimens or tissue samples are sent to the

Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (DACS) Division of Animal Industry and

Bureau of Diagnostic Laboratory Activities or the Department of Health (DOH) Laboratory,

Tampa for arbovirus isolation or antibody tests (FDOH 2005).

Active domestic animal surveillance involves the occasional or routine sampling of

domestic animals for arbovirus infection. Occasional antibody serosurveys of domestic animal

populations are considered retrospective and should be used in areas that lack routine arbovirus

surveillance (Nichols and Bigler 1967). Routine antibody serosurveys or virus isolations from

domestic animals provide a known period of infection. Drawbacks to the use of domestic animal

surveillance include a high turnover of animals making repeated sampling from the same

individual difficult (Endy and Nisalak 2002) and occasionally, inadequate knowledge of the

animal's life history (Dickerman and Scherer 1983).

Domestic mammals that have been used for arboviral surveillance include horses (Monath

et al. 1985), cattle (Gard et al. 1988), goats (Peiris et al. 1993), and pigs (Geevarghese et al.

1987).









Passive horse surveillance is most commonly used for monitoring EEEV, WEEV, and

WNV as horses may develop infections of the central nervous system in response to these

viruses but are not considered important reservoir hosts (Scott and Weaver 1989, Trock et al.

2001). Horse cases have preceded human cases in some epidemics of WNV (CDC 2003) and

EEEV (Scott and Weaver 1989). In Florida, before the statewide use of sentinel chickens,

equine morbidity was the best indicator of EEEV activity (Bigler et al. 1976), but Hayes and

Hess (1964) found no correlation of EEEV between horse and human cases in Florida from 1938

through 1961.

In Florida, horse serum is screened by HI assay at the Animal Disease Diagnostic

Laboratory (Kissimmee, FL) for Flavivirus and Alphavirus antibodies. Confirmation tests for

WNV or EEEV by MAC-ELISA and PRNT are performed at the National Veterinary Services

Laboratories in Ames, Iowa (Blackmore et al. 2003). Virus isolation from blood, brain, and

spinal cord tissues can be performed with rabbit kidney and Vero cell cultures with Alphavirus

isolates identified by complement fixation tests (Ostlund et al. 2001).

Many birds, such as emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) and pheasants (Phasianus

colchicus) have been introduced to North America are farmed for game animals and commodity

markets (Tully et al. 1992). Massive die offs of farm raised birds in the United States caused by

EEEV have been observed in emus (Day and Stark 1996a, Tully et al. 1992), pheasants (Tyzzer

et al. 1938), White Pekin ducklings (Dougherty and Price 1960), and Chukar Partridges

(Alectoris chukar) (Ranck et al. 1965). Many EEEV outbreaks in pheasants are driven by bird-

to-bird transmission (Holden 1955). In Florida case fatality rates due to EEEV in emus have

been reported as high as 14% (Day and Stark 1996a), pheasants up to 45%, and partridges up to









19% (Bigler et al. 1976). Human epidemics of EEEV have been preceded by epizootics among

gamebirds (Scott and Weaver 1989).

Zoological parks should be monitored for avian mortality (CDC 2003). Many bird species

in zoo collections are exotic and may experience high mortality when first introduced to WNV.

In New York in 1999, eight different species of exotic birds had deaths attributable to WNV

(Eidson et al. 2001a, Rappole et al. 2000). Of the 285 bird species found dead and positive for

WNV, 54 species were captive and exotic to North America (CDC 2006c).

Backyard chicken flocks have been used in active surveillance programs, especially in

areas where no other sentinel surveillance is routinely conducted. Flocks used for surveillance

should be no more than 30 birds (Bigler et al. 1976). Large commercial flocks are usually reared

indoors, inaccessible to mosquitoes, and in numbers that are so large the chance of finding

antibodies in birds is remote. Unless chickens are bled on a routine basis, backyard chicken

flocks are only useful in determination of past arboviral activity and do little to determine current

arboviral activity. Chickens less than one year old should be used in serosurveys to detect

arboviral activity in the last year (Nichols and Bigler 1967). Backyard chickens and domestic

geese were found to be ideal sentinels for WNV in New York City during 1999 (Komar et al.

2001).

In the southeast there have been several reports of farmed American alligator (Alligator

mississippiensis) die-offs caused by WNV (Jacobson et al. 2005, Klenk et al. 2004, Miller et al.

2003). On one alligator farm in Georgia more than 10% of the young alligators succumbed to

WNV (Miller et al. 2003). It has been shown that alligators can directly transmit WNV to

tankmates (Klenk et al. 2004). Horsemeat infected with WNV and fed to alligators was shown to

be the cause of an outbreak in Georgia (Miller et al. 2003). With multiple routes of infection for









WNV in alligators it is difficult to use alligator die-offs as an indication of arboviral activity

circulating in local mosquito populations. Outbreaks on alligator farms are cause for public

health concern as direct transmission of WNV to human alligator handlers has been documented

(Klenk et al. 2004).

Sentinel Animal Surveillance

Sentinel animals are vertebrates maintained at a specific location, exposed to natural

populations of mosquitoes, and routinely tested for evidence of arboviral infection. Evidence of

arbovirus infection is determined indirectly by testing blood for a seroconversion (production of

specific antibodies to arboviruses) or by direct virus isolation (Komar and Spielman 1995).

Vertebrate sentinels are critical for establishing proof of virus transmission in the absence of

human and horse arbovirus cases or bird die-offs (Day and Lewis 1991). Caged sentinel animals

provide information of arbovirus transmission at an exact location (Komar and Spielman 1995).

Komar (2001) stated that the ideal sentinel {vertebrate} is uniformly susceptible to infection,

resistant to disease, rapidly develops a detectable immune response, easily maintained, presents

negligible health risks to handlers, does not contribute to local pathogen transmission cycles, and

seroconverts to the target pathogen before the onset of disease outbreaks in the community.

Other factors to consider when selecting a sentinel animal are aggressiveness toward other

animals sharing the cage, its ability to withstand the local environmental conditions, and the

host/vector/disease dynamics for the area (Sudia et al. 1970).

Birds are commonly used as sentinels but may only represent enzootic transmission cycles

between predominantly ornithophilic mosquitoes (i.e., Cx. pipiens, Cs. melanura) and the viruses

they vector: whereas a sentinel mammal would indicate spillover of virus into an epidemic

transmission cycle by incidental feeding on non-target hosts or feeding by mammalophilic bridge

vectors (i.e., Cq. perturbans, Ae. albopictus). Selection of the ideal sentinel vertebrate is









complicated as there is no one vertebrate that works well for detection of all arboviruses in every

geographic region. Sentinel animal use is further complicated by the need to select proper

monitoring sites to represent enzootic or epidemic transmission (Komar 2001).

Sentinel mammals

Mammals are infrequently used as sentinels for arboviruses as small mammals may

experience high levels of mortality (Ventura and Ehrenkranz 1975), larger species are difficult to

maintain, and cross reactivity with other viruses may confound test results (Day et al. 1996).

Rabbits and rodents have been used as sentinels for CEV and EVEV in Florida (Jennings et al.

1968, Ventura and Ehrenkranz 1975). Sentinel mammals can be bled routinely to monitor

seroconversion and mammals that die during routine exposure should be submitted to a

laboratory for virus isolation (Sudia et al. 1970). Ventura and Ehrenkranz (1975) exposed

sentinel hamsters in South Florida for the detection of EVEV. Over 40% of the hamsters

exposed were killed by predators or stolen (Ventura and Ehrenkranz 1975).

Sentinel birds

Birds have been used routinely in arboviral surveillance programs for many decades

(Moore et al. 1993). The birds most often used as avian sentinels are chickens, pigeons,

pheasant, and quail (Bowen and Francy 1980, Morris et al. 1994, Reisen et al. 1992, Williams et

al. 1972). Within the United States bird species vary in their usefulness as sentinel animals from

region to region based on vector/host/disease dynamics. In the United States, sentinel birds have

been used for arboviral surveillance in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa,

Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and

Utah (Komar 2001). The various organizations conducting avian sentinel surveillance in a wide

range of geographic locations have used different bird species, varying numbers of sites,









numbers of birds exposed per site, heights and types of exposure devices, various bleeding

regimens and techniques, and laboratory tests.

The number of birds used per site ranges from 1 to 50 and depends on the species and type

of exposure device (Bellamy and Reeves 1952, Rainey et al. 1962). Public health and mosquito

control resources are limited so the number of birds exposed at a site and the number of sites

must be chosen carefully (Bowen and Francy 1980). In densely populated areas fewer sentinel

sites are available (Gergis and Presser 1988). Large numbers of chickens (25) and pigeons (30)

were exposed at ten sites between two counties in Los Angeles, the second largest city in

America (Gergis and Presser 1988). The use of fewer sentinels, 6 to 10, would reduce space

requirements, maintenance and eyesore to the public. By reducing these problems more

sentinels could be dispersed over a wider area and increase the chance of detecting focal

transmission points. The reduction of space requirements, maintenance and eyesore issues may

allow for the deployment of sentinels at public facilities (e.g., public health departments, pump

stations, wastewater treatment plants, electrical substations) or private residences. In urbanized

areas where sentinels cannot be placed wild bird populations should be tested (Gergis and

Presser 1988). Sentinel birds should be placed in the field prior to mosquito activity in northern

states or kept in the field throughout the year in southern states that experience mosquito activity

throughout the year (CDC 2003).

Birds should be bled and tested for previous arboviral infection before placement in the

field. Sentinel birds are bled on weekly (Day and Stark 1996b), bi-weekly (Crans 1986), or

monthly (Reisen et al. 1992) schedules. Blood (0.5 to 4.0cc) is drawn by brachial or jugular

venipuncture (Day 1989, Reisen et al. 1992) or by lancet comb prick (Reisen et al. 2004).









In Florida, during 2005, 33 of 67 counties conducted sentinel chicken surveillance (Stark

and Kazanis 2005). Most programs typically expose six chickens, with a range of four to eight

chickens per site throughout the year. Blood samples are taken via veinipuncture of the jugular

or brachial veins with a syringe and plunger. The blood is dispensed into vacutainers and usually

centrifuged at Mosquito Control for the separation of blood and serum. Serum samples are then

packaged and shipped to the DOH Bureau of Laboratory Services in Tampa, FL.

Hemagglutination Inhibition test is the initial screening test used to determine antibody response

to Alphaviruses or Flaviviruses. Positive HI results for Flaviviruses are identified by IgM-

capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA). West Nile virus negative birds are

re-bled and screened by the HI test. Samples positive during the second HI test are confirmed

and identified as SLEV or WNV by the plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT). Alphavirus

positives are confirmed and identified as EEEV or HJ by PRNT. The DOH Bureau of

Laboratory Services in Tampa processes 1200 to 1500 HI screening tests per week. On Fridays

the results of all positive chickens in the state are then faxed to every participating county and

negative/positive results of each chicken are faxed to the counties that submitted the samples (L.

M. Stark, personal communication).

Cherry et al. (2001) reported that fourteen sentinel chicken flocks failed to seroconvert for

WNV before human infection on Staten Island and in New York City. These areas cover

roughly 830 km2 and contain approximately 8.1 million people. With roughly 84 sentinel

chickens exposed and 8.1 million humans, there was a very low chance that the chickens were

bitten by infected mosquitoes before human infection. In New York State, sentinel chicken

surveillance has been ceased in favor of mosquito and dead bird surveillance (Darbro and

Harrington 2006).









Sentinel chickens were found to be relatively insensitive as predictors of human EEEV

cases in Florida (Bigler et al. 1976, Day and Stark 1996b). This may be due to lower feeding

rates on caged sentinels by Cs. melanura, the primary vector of EEEV (Scott and Weaver 1989).

Sentinel chickens in California were tested for antibodies to Cx. tarsalis salivary gland antigens

(Trevejo and Reeves 2005). Chickens seropositive for antibodies to Cx. tarsalis salivary gland

antigens were more likely to seroconvert to SLEV than salivary gland antigen seronegative

chickens (Trevejo and Reeves 2005). Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of SLEV in California

(Mitchell et al. 1980) so it follows that its absence would lead to an absence of SLEV

transmission. If this same technique of antibody detection to salivary gland antigens from Cs.

melanura, then seronegative chickens for antibodies to Cs. melanura salivary gland antigens

could explain a lack of EEEV transmission to sentinel chickens in Florida.

An important consideration when placing sentinels in the field is the height at which

sentinels are exposed. Sentinel chickens maintained at ground level did not predict WNV

transmission before human incidence in New York City (Cherry et al. 2001). Culexpipiens and

Cx. restuans are suspected vectors of WNV in New York (Anderson et al. 2004, Apperson et al.

2004). In the northeast, both Cx. pipiens and Cx. restuans host-seek in the tree canopy and at

ground level (Anderson et al. 2004, Darbro and Harrington 2006, Deegan et al. 2005). Darbro

and Harrington (2006) caught significantly more mosquitoes in the tree canopy than on the

ground with house sparrows and chickens as bait and they recommend the use of ground level

and tree canopy sentinel surveillance. Deegan et al. (2005) exposed sentinel pigeons at canopy

and ground levels and found significantly higher seroconversion rates for WNV at the canopy

level. Sentinel birds exposed at canopy levels are contained in modified lard cans (Bellamy and









Reeves 1952) or the Ehrenberg pigeon trap (Downing and Crans 1977) and typically exposed for

one night.

Interpretation of sentinel bird results can be complicated. Years of baseline data in an area

during epidemic and non-epidemic years are required. When conducting regional surveillance,

mean annual seroconversion rates (MASR), excluding epidemic years should be calculated

separately for each county (Day and Stark 1996b). When the real time ASR is higher than the

MASR there is generally cause for concern. At a regional level the comparison of real time

ASRs to the MASR shows increases and decreases of arbovirus activity between counties and

identifies viral foci that cross county lines (Day et al. 1991).

At the county level, certain sentinel sites will be more likely to have positive sentinels

depending on host/vector/disease dynamics (Day et al. 1991). Certain sites within counties will

more accurately represent enzootic/sylvan transmission (e.g., swamps, wooded areas) and other

sites will represent peridomestic/urban transmission cycles (e.g., backyards, urban parks). Single

serocoversions of sentinels in enzootic/sylvan transmission sites are typically not cause for

public health concern as these sites will experience background transmission quite often.

Williams et al. (1972) found that sites deep inside swamps were likely to have elevated levels of

EEEV transmission earlier in the season than sites at the edge of the swamp and upland sites. An

increase in sentinel seroconversion rates in open, dry sites in south Florida may represent

imminent threat of arbovirus transmission to humans by Cx. nigripalpus (Day and Carlson

1985). As autumn rainfalls occur and humidity levels increase Cx. nigripalpus will exit previous

resting sites (e.g., wooded hammocks) and blood feed in open dry sites (e.g., fields, backyards,

urban areas) increasing the likelihood of SLEV transmission to humans (Day and Carlson 1985,

Day and Edman 1988). In Florida, seroconversion rates of SLEV above 30 percent over a three









week period are cause for concern (Day and Lewis 1992). High seroconversion rates earlier in

the transmission season (May to July) represent greater threat to human cases than equally high

seroconverison rates later in the season (August to December) (Day and Lewis 1992).

There are many positives to using chickens as arbovirus sentinels. Chickens are

commercially available and relatively inexpensive -$5 to 7 (Komar and Spielman 1995).

Several strains of chickens are capable of enduring extreme outdoor conditions (O'Bryan and

Jefferson 1991). Chickens are highly attractive to Culex spp. mosquitoes. In the most extreme

case in Orange County, FL an estimated 2.3 million mosquitoes, mostly Culex, were recovered

from one exit trap collection (OCMCD data). Sentinel chickens are inactive after sunset, during

the period of Culex spp. blood feeding activity (Day and Edman 1984). Adult chickens survive

EEEV (Byrne and Robbins 1961), WEEV, SLEV (LaMotte et al. 1967), and WNV (Senne et al.

2000) infections. Chickens develop detectable antibodies to EEEV within 4 days (Olson et al.

1991), WEEV within 10 days, SLEV within 14 days (Reisen et al. 1994), and WNV within eight

days (Senne et al. 2000). Chickens run short duration, low-level viremias to WEEV, SLEV

(Reisen et al. 1994), and WNV (Langevin et al. 2001) with little threat of passing the virus to

other mosquitoes. During the 1990 SLEV outbreak in Florida sentinel chicken seroconversion

rates above the MASR were found in several counties before human infection (Day and Stark

1996b).

There are disadvantages to using sentinel chickens. Chickens are larger than most other

sentinel birds and therefore more expensive to feed and require more cage space (Komar and

Spielman 1995). During epidemics when many sentinel chickens are seroconverting they need

to be rapidly replaced it may be difficult to find poultry distributors with the particular breed

(White leghorns in Florida) that is desired (O'Bryan and Jefferson 1991). Chickens may become









aggressive toward cage mates leading to mortality (OCMCD data). Delayed results because of

antibody development and lab confirmation are another major drawback to sentinel chicken

surveillance or any avian surveillance (O'Bryan and Jefferson 1991).

It takes 8 to 21 days for HI antibodies to SLEV to develop in chickens (O'Bryan and

Jefferson 1991). It would not be until day 9 (minimum) or day 15 (maximum) post infection that

the antibody positive blood sample would be drawn. Initial report of suspected positive would

not occur until day 16 to 22 post infection and confirmation would follow 23 to 29 days post-

infection (DPI) (O'Bryan and Jefferson 1991).

In the 1990 SLEV outbreak in Indian River County, suspected positives were treated as

confirmed so a more rapid mosquito control response could be mounted (O'Bryan and Jefferson

1991). Even with this system, the actual transmission event occurred two to three weeks prior.

For WNV, it takes a minimum of seven days for HI antibody development (Senne et al. 2000), so

suspect cases would be reported within 15 to 21 DPI and confirmed 22 to 28 DPI. For EEEV it

takes a minimum of 4 days for HI antibody development (Olson et al. 1991), so suspect cases

would be reported within 8 to 14 DPI. However, confirmation with PRNT takes 1 to 2 weeks so

it would be 15 to 28 DPI before a confirmed EEEV case was reported. It is important to wait for

confirmation of EEEV tests because Highlands J virus is not of public health importance and

therefore control measures for HJ virus are not necessary.

As with other avian species (Sooter et al. 1954) adult hens may transovarialy transmit

maternal HI antibodies to SLEV virus (Bond et al. 1965) and NT antibodies to SLEV and WEEV

viruses to their offspring (Reeves et al. 1954). Maternal HI antibody levels tend to be lower than

HI levels found after mosquito-borne arboviral infection (Bond et al. 1965). Chickens less than

15 days old may have detectable maternal antibodies (Day 2001), which would produce









seropositive chickens that were not infected during field exposure. Often times chickens used as

bait in lard can traps are less than one month old (Rutledge et al. 2003). Chickens should be bled

and tested before field exposure (Day 1989). Chickens less than nine days of age should not be

used for the surveillance of EEEV as they exhibit high levels of mortality to EEEV infection

(Byrne and Robbins 1961). Chickens should be housed in a mosquito proof enclosure before

placement in the field (Day 1989). During the Florida SLEV outbreak of 1990, the Indian River

Mosquito Control District had numerous sentinel chickens seroconvert before placement in the

field because of SLEV infection at the IRMCD because chickens were not held in mosquito

proof enclosures (O'Bryan and Jefferson 1991).









CHAPTER 2
CAGE ESCAPE TRIALS

Introduction

Sentinel chickens can provide important information about arbovirus activity in an area,

but do not provide information about which mosquito species are transmitting arboviruses.

Rainey et al. (1962) implemented a mosquito trap designed to catch mosquitoes as they approach

the chickens, before mosquitoes entered the cage. A recent addition to some sentinel cage

designs in Florida is an exit trap (T. P. Breaud and D. A. Shroyer, personal communication).

These exit traps differ from the traps discussed in Rainey et al. (1962) because they capture

mosquitoes after they enter the cages, attempt to obtain a blood meal, and try to exit the cage.

Exit traps are placed on top (OCMCD and Volusia County Mosquito Control District) or on the

sides of cages (Manatee County and Indian River County Mosquito Control Districts). While

exit traps provide evidence of the mosquito species attracted to sentinel chickens, they may

disproportionately represent the abundance of mosquito species that enter the cages and attempt

to feed. This means that there is a potential to miss certain mosquito species that enter sentinel

cages and are able to transmit arboviruses, thereby underestimating their importance in arbovirus

transmission cycles.

There is no universal blueprint for the design of the sentinel chicken cages for mosquito

control districts. This has led to the creation of many different types of sentinel cages. Sentinel

cages have been designed to hold two chickens (King 1983) to thirty chickens (Rainey et al.

1962). Most sentinel chicken cages used in Florida hold six chickens (T. P. Breaud and D. A.

Shroyer, personal communication).

An experimental cage was designed in January, 2005 and built at OCMCD for this study.

The experimental cage was designed to capture as many host seeking mosquitoes that come to









feed on the chickens as possible. Mosquitoes were caught in the exit trap or contained within the

sentinel cage where the chickens are held. The experimental sentinel chicken cage design is

similar to that used by OCMCD with a few modifications (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Modifications

to the original OCMCD sentinel cage include: the addition of a mesh baffle to funnel

mosquitoes into the cage, plastic sheets to prevent chicken feces from contacting the mesh baffle,

entry portals to allow personnel access to inside of the cage for aspiration, and a reduced inner

cage to allow room for personnel to aspirate the cage and as a refuge for mosquitoes.

It is important to determine the limitations of any mosquito trap used in surveillance. Prior

to field trials, the experimental cage was tested for its efficiency at drawing mosquitoes into the

cage and its ability to contain mosquitoes once inside the cage. To determine the efficiency of

the experimental cage the baffle angle was altered through a range of angles from 0-60. This

was done to determine the baffle angle that maximized the number of mosquitoes and mosquito

species caught in the cage. The mark-release-recapture technique was used with five species of

colonized mosquitoes with CO2 and chickens as the attractant. The mark-release-recapture

technique is the release of a known number of mosquitoes that have been marked by fluorescent

powders (Pylam Products Co., Tempe, AZ) and measuring the rates of mosquito recovery.

Materials and Methods

Laboratory colonies of Ae. albopictus, Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus), An. quadrimaculatus

Say, Cx. quinquefasciatus, and Cx. nigripalpus (USDA-CMAVE strains) were used to determine

whether or not they were able to escape from the experimental cage, and the likelihood that each

species was attracted to and entered the cage. Diurnally active species, Ae. aegypti and Ae.

albopictus were released at 9:30 am and aspirated from the cage at 5:00 pm. Nocturnally active

species, An. quadrimaculatus, Cx. quinquefasciatus, and Cx. nigripalpus were released at sunset

and aspirated from the cage at 8:00 am the next morning.









All trials were conducted within the confines of an outdoor mosquito cage (9.1 m x 18.3 m

x 4.9 m gabled to 5.5 m) at the United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Medical

Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Gainesville, FL (USDA-CMAVE). The experimental

cage was placed in the center of an outdoor mosquito cage. All release trials were conducted

within the confines of the outdoor mosquito cage. A Hobo data logger (Onset, Bourne, MA),

was placed on top of the inner cage to monitor changes in temperature, humidity, and light. A

Vantage Pro 2 Weather Envoy (Davis, Hayward, CA), was placed next to experimental cage to

monitor wind speed and direction. Rainfall data were obtained from the University of Florida

Physics department (UFDP 2005).

Mosquito Rearing

Aedes aegypti and An. quadrimaculatus eggs were provided weekly by the USDA. Aedes

albopictus, Cx. nigripalpus, and Cx. quinquefasciatus eggs were collected from lab-reared

specimens. Five days after Cx. nigripalpus blood feeding, 5 to 7 day old hay infusion was

provided for as an oviposition source for gravid adult Cx. nigripalpus females. Four days after

Cx. quinquefasciatus blood feeding, distilled well water was provided as an oviposition source

for gravid adult Cx. quinquefasciatus females. Four to five egg rafts from either species were

immediately placed into plastic containers with distilled well water. After larvae hatched they

were transferred to larval pans with distilled well water. Eggs from adult Ae. albopictus were

collected on moistened brown paper, dried and stored for approximately one week in a cool, dry

Ziploc (Johnson, Racine, WI) bag.

Larvae were reared in plastic pans 50.8 cm x 38.1 cm x 7.6 cm and fed according to the

feeding schedule in Table 2-1. Adults were held in 41 cm x 41 cm x 46 cm cages and were

provided a constant source of 10% sugar water solution. All mosquitoes were reared at 28 +

1.0C and 90 4% RH on a 14 : 10, light: dark cycle. Adult females were provided the









opportunity to blood feed on restrained chickens obtained by the USDA-CMAVE. All chickens

used for colony feeding were cared for according protocols approved by the University

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (#D469) and were housed at the USDA-CMAVE.

Marking

Mosquitoes were aspirated from emergence cages with a hand-held aspirator (Hausherr's

Machine Works, Toms River, N.J.). Except for An. quadrimaculatus, mosquitoes were

temporarily immobilized with CO2 at a rate of 500 mL/min. The high knock-down threshold of

colony-reared Anopheles quadrimaculatus to CO2, required them to be chilled for 20 minutes in

a refrigerator and then placed on a chill table maintained at 4 oC.

The number of individuals of each mosquito species required for each trial were counted

placed into cardboard cups with screen lids. The inside of the cups were lightly dusted with

either red, white, blue, yellow, green, or orange fluorescent marking powder. Each trial and cage

were assigned specific colors for that day or night. Mosquitoes used in release trials were six to

eighteen days post emergence. A water moistened cotton ball was placed on top of the screen to

keep the humidity high. Mosquitoes were given at least half an hour to recover from the cold or

CO2 knockdown treatments before being released in trials. At the completion of every trial all

mosquitoes were aspirated from the experimental cage. Any mosquitoes that were dead inside

the cardboard cup were noted as mortality caused by the marking process and excluded from

statistical analysis. Recovered mosquitoes were observed under a black light (Adams Apple

Distributing LP, Glenview, IL) to determine the trial in which they were released.

Chickens

White leghorn chickens, 19 to 25 weeks old, were used as the attractant in the experimental

cages. Protocols for the care and use of the chickens were approved by the UF IACUC, #D996.

The chickens were housed behind the Entomology and Nematology Department building on









campus, in Gainesville, FL. Chickens housed in this location were exposed to natural

populations of mosquitoes prior to experimental exposure.

Experimental Cage Design

An outer cage measuring 1.7 m x 1.3 m x 1.2 m (H x W x D) was constructed with 2" x 4"

and 4" x 4" treated pine lumber and 2.5 cm x 5.1 cm hardware cloth (Figure 2-3). An inner cage

measuring 0.7 m x 1 m x 1 m was constructed out of 2" x 2" treated pine lumber and 1.3 cm x

2.5 cm hardware cloth (Figure 2-4). Chickens were housed in the inner cage. The purpose of the

inner cage was to create a double barrier of hardware cloth to prevent predators from entering

cage, to allow easy removal of the chickens, provide enough room to maneuver an aspirator, and

to provide a refuge for mosquitoes to rest without threat of consumption by chickens.

A board measuring 2" x 2" on which chickens roosted during the night, extended

diagonally across the inner cage (Figure 2-4). The inner cage was supported by two 2" x 4"

boards spaced 1.9 cm apart, which extended horizontally across the cage to form the baffle entry

slit (Figure 2-3). The inner cage rested on two 5 mm thick plastic sheets. The plastic sheets

were cut to the shape of the outer cage and the baffle slit. The plastic sheets kept chicken feces

from falling on the mesh baffle and prevented mosquitoes from flying underneath the inner cage.

Two pieces of 0.5" x 2" treated pine lumber were attached to the bottom of the inner cage to

prevent chickens from contacting their feces (Figure 2-4). The inner cage was coated in water

sealant to prevent feces and urine from soaking into the wood. A one-gallon water container and

feeder were placed in the cage when chickens were present.

The outer cage was sealed with 12-count mesh screening. Male Velcro was stapled to

the outer cage. Twelve-count mesh screening was attached to the cage by female Velcro. The

mesh screening was removed when the cage was not used.









Portals (20 cm x 23 cm) on three sides of the outer cage functioned as doors that allowed

personnel to reach inside the cage. The portals were constructed with 1.3 cm x 2.5 cm hardware

cloth and wire ring clamps. The portals were used to release mosquitoes or to aspirate

mosquitoes. The portals were sealed with 12-count mesh screening attached to the cage with

Velcro.

An exit trap was constructed in the center of the sheet metal roof (Figure 2-5 A.). A five

gallon water container was used to construct the exit trap. The water container was cut in half

and the top half was permanently attached to a circular, sliding piece of sheet metal. The bottom

half of the water container was inverted and rested on the top half of the permanently mounted

water container (Figure 2-5 B.). Mosquitoes flying upward into the exit trap were funneled

through the neck, out the spout, and were potentially contained within the removable portion of

the exit trap. Tubular Stockinette (Bioquip, Rancho Dominguez, CA) was attached to the

bottom half of the water container and functioned as a seal to keep mosquitoes in the

containment portion of the exit trap.

Aspirator

An aspirator was designed to remove mosquitoes from the experimental cage (Figure 2-6).

A modified Bioquip DC Insect Vac 12 volt aspirator (Rancho Dominguez, CA) provided the

suction power. A containment jar was connected to the end of the aspirator. Two meters of 10

mm diameter braided vinyl tubing extended from the top of the containment jar. The braided

vinyl tubing was the only part of the aspirator that entered the cage. Mosquitoes were sucked

through the braided vinyl tubing and held inside the containment jar. Mosquitoes were not

damaged by the aspirator. Fluorescent marking powders and important morphological characters

used for species identification were not removed or destroyed during the aspiration process.









Escape Rates

The experimental cage was completely sealed as it would be used in the field with only the

baffle slit open (Experiments 2 and 3) or closed (Experiment 1). The cardboard cups that

contained one-hundred marked mosquitoes were placed inside the sealed, experimental outer

cage, on top of the inner cage. The cardboard cups were opened rapidly and the outer cage portal

and mesh were sealed before mosquitoes could escape the cage. Three escape experiments were

conducted: 1) no attractant with the baffle slit sealed, 2) no attractant with the baffle slit open,

and 3) baited with two restrained chickens with the baffle slit open. Chickens were individually

restrained inside mesh laundry bags that were cinched tight and allowed no movement of the

chickens. The mesh bag holding the chickens were suspended in the center of the inner cage.

Three night time and four day time non-baited, closed slit trials were conducted. Five night time

and seven daytime non-baited, open slit trials were conducted. Eight night time and day time

chicken baited, open slit trials were conducted. A Mosquito Magnet Pro (American

Biophysics, North Kingstown, RI) was operated three meters from the experimental cage. The

purpose of the Mosquito Magnet was to attract mosquitoes out of the experimental cage.

Any trials with greater than 15% marking mortality for a species were not included in the

means analysis. The mean percent of mosquitoes recovered for each species was calculated.

The percent of mosquitoes recovered from the exit trap and cage were calculated for the non-

baited open slit and chicken baited open slit trials. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to

compare the percent of mosquitoes captured in the exit trap and cage for the non-baited, open slit

and the chicken baited, open slit experiments. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (P = 0.025) was

used to compare the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes recovered in the cage and the exit trap.

This was done to determine if blood-fed mosquitoes were more likely to be captured in the exit

trap or the cage.









Entry Rates

To determine the best baffle angle for trapping the greatest number of mosquitoes, mark-

release-recapture experiments were conducted using six different baffle angles (0, 100, 200, 36,

48, and 560). The temporary baffle angles were created by attaching fiberglass mesh panels to

the baffle slit by Velcro and to the cage legs by thumb push pins. Sewing pins were used to

connect the mesh panels. The cage was baited with CO2 (flow rate of 500 mL/min) for six night

and day trials. The CO2 tank was placed outside the experimental cage and tubing that extended

into the middle of the inner cage released the CO2. A different baffle angle (0, 100, 200, 36,

48, and 560) was used for each trial where CO2 was used as bait. There were six night and day

trials with three restrained chickens used as bait and either 0 or 36 baffle angles. Two-hundred

and fifty female mosquitoes of each species were released at their respective times of activity.

Mosquitoes were released outside of the experimental cage. The number of mosquitoes that

were contained in the experimental cage and the exit trap at the end of each trial were recorded.

Cardboard cups that contained marked mosquitoes of each species were placed against the

back wall of the outdoor mosquito cage. The experimental cage was then baited with either CO2

or chickens. After the CO2 or the chickens were set in place the mosquitoes were released.

Mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage at the termination of each trial.

Results

Escape Trial Results

Mean recovery rates from the no-bait, slit closed trials were Cx. nigripalpus 89.4 2.4%,

Cx. quinquefasciatus 84.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 91.1% (Figure 2-7), Ae. albopictus 74.1 +

4.8%, and Ae. aegypti 86.6 2.8% (Figure 2-8).

Mean recovery rates from the no-bait, slit open trials were Cx. nigripalpus 74.0 + 8.4%,

Cx. quinquefasciatus 55.3 + 6.4%, An. quadrimaculatus 80.0 11.5% (Figure 2-7), Ae.









albopictus 65.6 5.8%, and Ae. aegypti 71.1 5.6% (Figure 2-8). Of the mosquitoes recovered,

the mean percent recovered from the exit trap were Cx. nigripalpus 43.6 13.3%, Cx.

quinquefasciatus 25.2 11.8%, An. quadrimaculatus 33.7 6.1%, Ae. albopictus 4.4 1.4%,

and Ae. aegypti 11.4 + 3.5%. Cage aspiration collections were significantly greater than cage

aspiration collections for Cx. quinquefasciatus, An. quadrimaculatus, Ae. albopictus, and Ae.

aegypti (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025).

Mean recovery rates from the chicken baited, slit open trials were Cx. nigripalpus 77.7 +

6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 47.4 10.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 65.8 12.1% (Figure 2-7), Ae.

albopictus 58.7 4.6%, and Ae. aegypti 57.0 5.5% (Figure 2-8). Of the mosquitoes recovered

the mean percent recovered from the exit trap were Cx. nigripalpus 28.8 9.2%, Cx.

quinquefasciatus 23.0 11.7%, An. quadrimaculatus 34.2 12.3%, Ae. albopictus 4.2 0.7%,

and Ae. aegypti 3.2 1.0% (Figure 2-9). Cage aspiration collections were significantly greater

than exit trap collections for Cx. nigripalpus, Cx. quinquefasciatus, Ae. albopictus, and Ae.

aegypti (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025).

The mean percent of blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the cage compared to exit trap for the

chicken baited, open slit trials were Cx. nigripalpus cage 51.0 16.7% and exit trap 37.2

10.9%, Cx. quinquefasciatus cage 35.3 12.8% and exit trap 0 + 0%, An. quadrimaculatus cage

57.8 11.0% and exit trap 7.3 5.7%, Ae. albopictus cage 42.8 8.6% and exit trap 12.5 +

12.5%, and Ae. aegypti cage 42.6 8.7% and exit trap 0 + 0%. The percent of blood-fed

mosquitoes were significantly higher in the cage than exit trap for Cx. quinquefasciatus, An.

quadrimaculatus, Ae. albopictus, and Ae. aegypti (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025).

Cage Entry Results

Mean percent recovery rates for the 0 baffle trials were Cx. nigripalpus 0.27 0.27%, Cx.

quinquefasciatus 0.14 0.14%, An. quadrimaculatus 1.61 0.83%, Ae. albopictus 0.4 0.0%,









and Ae. aegypti 0.4 0.23%. Mean percent recovery rates for the 36 baffle trials were Cx.

nigripalpus 0.14 0.14%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 0.14 0.14%, An. quadrimaculatus 1.34 +

1.34%, Ae. albopictus 0.13 0.13%, and Ae. aegypti 1.07 0.13%. No mosquitoes were

recovered from the exit trap during the cage entry trials.

Discussion

Trials with mosquito marking mortality greater than 15% were associated with older

females (>16 days post emergence) and with lowered blood-feeding success in the chicken

baited, open slit trials. This behavioral change and increased marking mortality suggested that

older (>16 days post emergence), colony-raised mosquitoes may not behave the same as younger

mosquitoes (<16 days post emergence). Therefore, trials with mosquito marking mortality

greater than 15% were not included in data analysis.

The Mosquito Magnet rarely caught mosquitoes that were released during trials. The

Mosquito Magnet did capture mosquitoes after the trial had ended as determined by analyzing

mosquitoes for fluorescent marking powders. The Mosquito Magnet data was not presented

because of the low capture rate of escaped mosquitoes during release trials.

The no-bait, closed slit trials represented the likelihood that mosquitoes would be captured

in the cage and recovered during the aspiration process. Mean recovery rates for Cx.

nigripalpus, Cx. quinquefasciatus, An. quadrimaculatus, and Ae. aegypti ranged from 84.9% to

91.1% (Figures 2-7 and 2-8). Aedes albopictus mean recovery rate was 74.1 4.8% (Figure 2-

8). Aedes albopictus may be more adept at escaping from the cage or avoiding aspiration than

the other four species. Colony raised Ae. albopictus appeared to be smaller than field caught

specimens (personal observation). Numerous Ae. albopictus individuals were caught in the

fiberglass mesh screen. It appeared as if the Ae. albopictus may have been trying to twist their









way through the mesh. If colony-raised Ae. albopictus can escape through the mesh, then this

might explain the lowered recovery rates for this species.

Mean recovery rates from the non-baited, open slit trials were less than non-baited, closed

slit trials (Ae. albopictus 8.5%, An. quadrimaculatus 11.5%, Cx. nigripalpus 15.4%, Ae. aegypti

15.5%, and Cx. quinquefasciatus 29.6%) (Figures 2-7 and 2-8). This shows that mosquitoes may

escape through the baffle slit. Culex quinquefasciatus appeared to be able to escape the cage

through the baffle slit. When there was no bait, lab-raised Cx. quinquefasciatus, An.

quadrimaculatus, Ae. albopictus, and Ae. aegypti were caught in the cage more often than the

exit trap (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025). Aedes albopictus was observed to fly freely

between the exit trap and cage which shows that the exit trap collections may not contain all

mosquitoes that originally entered the exit trap.

Mean recovery rates from the chicken-baited, open slit trials were less than non-baited,

open slit trials for Ae. albopictus 6.8%, Cx. quinquefasciatus 7.9%, An. quadrimaculatus 13.8%,

and Ae. aegypti 14.1% (Figures 2-7 and 2-8). The two restrained chickens were not capable of

ingesting mosquitoes, which would have reduced recovery rates. Some mosquito species may be

more likely to escape the cage after blood-feeding. The percent mosquitoes blood-fed and the

percent captured in the cage compared to the exit trap were significantly higher for Cx.

quinquefasciatus, Ae. albopictus, and Ae. aegypti. These three colony raised species avoided

entry into the exit trap when blood-fed. No blood-fed Cx. quinquefasciatus or Ae. aegypti were

recovered from the exit trap. The percent of mosquitoes captured in the exit trap shows that Ae.

albopictus and Ae. aegypti are infrequently captured in the exit trap (Figure 2-9).

Culex nigripalpus had the highest percent of blood-fed mosquitoes in the exit trap (37.2 +

10.9%) and was the only species not to have significantly (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025)









more blood-fed mosquitoes caught in the cage than the exit trap. These findings show that

blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were more likely to be collected in the exit trap than the other four

species.

These results should be interpreted with caution because colony-raised mosquitoes may

behave differently from wild mosquitoes. These results should only be used to show the

potential range of differences that may exist among wild mosquito species with respect to their

ability to enter, fly within, and exit the cage.

Recovery rates of mosquitoes released in CO2 and chicken baited cage entry trials were

poor. Low recovery rates were contributed to many factors. It was very dry and hot during the

time periods that mosquitoes were released, with maximum daytime temperatures reaching

40.5C on many days. There was only one evening with rainfall (>20 mm). Increased

temperatures combined with reduced humidity levels may have reduced mosquito flight activity.

Within the outdoor mosquito cage there were numerous species of lizards and frogs that may

have consumed mosquitoes before they entered the experimental cage. Glue boards were used to

reduce lizard populations within the outdoor mosquito cage. Directly adjacent to the outdoor

mosquito cage were several trees that harbored populations of wild birds. Released mosquitoes

may have been more attracted to wild birds than the CO2 or chickens inside the experimental

cage. Time constraints only allowed a single day and night trial to be conducted for CO2 baited

cage entry trials which eliminated statistical analyses of these data.

Cage entry trials provided little insight to which baffle angle would maximize mosquito

catches in the field. An angle of 33 was chosen as the permanent baffle angle for the

experimental cage. This angle was chosen because it allowed a gap of 0.4 m from underneath

the front and rear edges of the baffle to the ground (Figures 2.2 and 2.4). The gap allowed









mosquitoes flying at ground level to 0.4m above ground level to approach the cage from all four

sides. The permanent baffle was constructed with 2" x 4" and 2" x 2" treated pine lumber

(Figure 2-4). Male Velcro was stapled to the baffle. Twelve-count mesh screen was attached

to the baffle by female Velcro.

Conclusions

The experimental cage was capable of containing released mosquitoes. Mosquitoes were

capable of exiting the cage through the baffle slit. Certain species such as Cx. quinquefasciatus,

Ae. aegypti, and Ae. albopictus were more adept at escaping from the experimental cage than Cx.

nigripalpus and An. quadrimaculatus. Culex nigripalpus, Cx. quinquefasciatus, and An.

quadrimaculatus were frequently recovered from the exit trap, whereas, Ae. aegypti and Ae.

albopictus were infrequently recovered from the exit trap.

Orange County Mosquito Control Division relies only on exit trap collections to assess

mosquito species diversity and abundance of mosquitoes attracted to sentinel chickens. The

experimental cages were used in the field to compare the number of mosquitoes successfully

collected in the exit trap to the number of mosquitoes collected in the cage (Chapter 6).









Table 2-1. Larval feeding regimen


Species
Cx. quinquefasciatus
Cx. nigripalpus
Ae. aegypti
Ae. albopictus
An. quadrimaculatus*


Slurry Ingredients
1%BLP and 1%BY
1%BLP and 1%BY
3% BLP and 2% BY
3% BLP and 2% BY
1% BLP, 1%BY, 1%HC
1% BLP, 1%BY, 1%HC
1% BLP, 1%BY, 1%HC**


BLP = bovine liver powder, BY
** powder


brewers yeast, HC


Amount Fed
20mL
20mL
50mL
50mL
50, 25mL
50mL
dusted


Feeding Schedule
daily
daily
every other day
every other day
first and third day
fifth and seventh day
fourth and sixth day


hog chow, fed slurry and powder,


Figure 2-1. Original sentinel chicken cage used by OCMCD



































Figure 2-2. Experimental sentinel chicken cage used for research


















12m












I -------------------------- -----------------------
.-


Figure 2-3. Line drawing of experimental cage A) Front view B) Side view


~ ------------------------------ --------------------- -------


13m


I~
,,
I~


II


~















Ior I







0
-j


A
Figure 2-4. Line drawing of experimental inner cage A) Front view B) Side view


























A B
Figure 2-5. Sentinel chicken cage exit trap A) Sliding sheet metal with permanently mounted portion of exit trap B) Removable exit
trap collection device













































figure z-o. AssemDlea aspirator


,...-~; R.















80


60


40


20


T
T


ST


T


0
0 -- -------- -- --------^--
Cx. nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus An.
quadrimaculatus

O no bait, closed slit U no bait, open slit U chicken, open slit

Figure 2-7. Night escape trials percent mosquitoes recovered with no bait, closed slit; no bait, open slit; and chicken bait, open slit







































Ae. albopictus

O no bait, slit closed


* no bait, slit open


Ae. aegypti

* chicken, slit open


Figure 2-8. Day escape trials percent mosquitoes recovered with no bait, closed slit; no bait, open slit; and chicken bait, open slit
















80

0

S60
o ocage
U exit
o 40
E



g 20



0
Cx. nigripalpus Cx. quinquefasciatus An. quadrimaculatus Ae. albopictus Ae. aegypti

Figure 2-9. Percent mosquitoes recovered from experimental cage and exit trap with chicken bait and baffle slit open









CHAPTER 3
SENTINEL CHICKEN DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR

Introduction

Studies conducted by Edman and others concerning the defensive behaviors of

Ciconiiformes against mosquitoes and the influence of these behaviors on Cx. nigripalpus blood

feeding success (Edman and Kale 1971, Edman et al. 1972a, Kale et al. 1972, Maxwell and Kale

1977, Webber and Edman 1972). Edman and Kale (1971), Edman et al. (1972a), and Kale et al.

(1972) showed the blood feeding success by Cx. nigripalpus to be influenced by host defensive

behaviors, host age, host species and mosquito density. Ciconiiform birds (i.e., Little Blue

Heron, Cattle Egret, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis) actively display host defensive behaviors after

sunset (Edman and Kale 1971), whereas the domestic white leghorn chickens used in this

experiment roost at sunset and do not display defensive behaviors until awakening at sunrise

(Appleby et al. 2004). These differing patterns in host defensive behavior may influence the

blood feeding success of Cx. nigripalpus.

Edman et al. (1974) used unrestrained chickens of various ages to look at the blood feeding

success of wild Cx. nigripalpus. Three experiments exposed two-week old chicks, eight-week

old chicks, and adult chickens to 200 host-seeking Cx. nigripalpus. Culex nigripalpus recovery

rates and blood feeding success increased with older chickens. Recovery rates and percent of

blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were: two-week old chicks 79% and 24%, eight-week old chickens

84% and 59%, and adult chickens 90% and 78%. Chickens six to eight weeks old were found to

be moderately tolerant to Cx. nigripalpus when compared to other species of birds and mammals

(Edman et al. 1974). Sentinel chickens used for arboviral surveillance in Orange County, FL are

a minimum of 12 weeks old when first placed in the field (OCMCD data). In Orange County

sentinel chickens are kept in the field for approximately one year. Therefore, it is important to









evaluate mosquito interactions with chickens at an age representative of sentinel chickens used

for arboviral surveillance in Orange County, FL. For the research presented here, chicken

defensive behaviors are defined as any behavior that causes mortality to mosquitoes or interferes

with mosquito blood feeding success.

The present study was designed to assess the effects of adult chickens (25 to 28 weeks old)

defensive behaviors on the recovery rates and blood feeding success of Cx. nigripalpus and

Aedes albopictus (Skuse) during their normal flight and activity periods. Exit traps were added

to sentinel chicken cages in Orange County, FL in 2003. These exit traps capture mosquitoes as

they fly upward from the cage. Exit traps provide an assessment of the mosquito species that

approach sentinel chickens. In the field, exit traps can only collect mosquitoes that enter the

cage, survive chicken defensive behaviors, and enter the exit trap. Exit trap collections may not

accurately quantify the mosquito species attracted to sentinel chickens if chicken defensive

behavior adversely impacts the survival of host-seeking mosquitoes. The effects of adult sentinel

chicken defensive behavior on mosquito recovery rates and the location of recovery within the

cage were assessed. This assessment will provide insight into how sentinel chicken defensive

behaviors might influence mosquito exit trap collections in the field.

Materials and Methods

Mosquito Rearing

Too few wild Cx. nigripalpus were captured in Orange County to produce enough F

progeny for the experiments and time constraints limited the creation of an entirely new colony.

Therefore, a cross mating of colony and wild Cx. nigripalpus were used for the present study.

Wild, virgin male Cx. nigripalpus and colony, virgin females were cross mated, as this was

proven the most successful mating combination by Haeger and O'Meara (1970). Wild, blood-

fed Cx. nigripalpus females were obtained from Orange County on May 21, 2006 by using white









leghorn chicken-baited lardcan traps (Bellamy and Reeves 1952) and sentinel chicken cage exit

traps. Chickens used as bait for field collected Cx. nigripalpus were obtained by OCMCD.

Mosquitoes were aspirated from traps, placed in cardboard cups, provided a 10% sugar water

solution, and transported to Gainesville. Once in the laboratory, the field-collected mosquitoes

were immobilized with chloroform and placed on a chill table maintained at 40C. Chilled

mosquitoes were identified to species and all mosquitoes that were not blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus

females were discarded.

Blood-fed Cx. nigripalpus were placed into a 61 cm x 46 cm x 61 cm cage. All adults

were provided cotton soaked in 10% sugar water solution. Mosquitoes were maintained at 26.5

2.5C and 90 10% RH in a room exposed to the natural outdoor light cycle. Larvae were fed

a 20 mL slurry of 1% bovine liver powder and 1% brewers yeast once per day. Adults were

provided blood meals from restrained chickens of various breeds (IACUC #D469).

Colony and wild Cx. nigripalpus were offered restrained chickens to blood feed from on

the same day. Five days after blood feeding, 5 to 7 day old, hay-infusion in black plastic cups

was provided for wild and colony adult, gravid female oviposition. This blood feeding and

oviposition schedule synchronized the emergence of adult colony and wild Cx. nigripalpus. Ten

hours after emergence, adult mosquitoes were placed in a walk-in cooler (Eskimo Panels Inc.,

Miami, FL) at 40C to temporarily immobilize them. Immobilized mosquitoes were aspirated

from the cage, transported to the chill table, and sorted by sex. Wild Cx. nigripalpus males were

placed into a 61 cm x 46 cm x 61 cm cage and wild females were discarded. This was done three

times every 10 hours with each cohort. The same method was used to obtain colony females and

discard colony males. By removing recently emerged Cx. nigripalpus from the emergence cage

every ten hours it was assured that males would not be able to inseminate colony females since









there is a 12 to 24 hour period required for male genitals to rotate into the proper position for

copulation. Colony females were placed into the same 61 cm x 46 cm x 61 cm cage with the

wild males. A 40-watt incandescent bulb on a dimmer switch was used to create an artificial

sunset in the room that would extend dusk, the primary period of mating activity, one hour past

sunset. The Fl progeny of this wild x colony cross mated and produced viable offspring. The

F2 progeny were used for the experiments reported here.

Wild Ae. albopictus and other mosquitoes were aspirated as they landed on a human host

at a field site in Orange County between the hours of 11:00 am and 1:00 pm on May 22, 2005.

Mosquitoes were transported to Gainesville in cardboard cups with 10% sugar water solution

soaked cotton balls. Mosquitoes were temporarily immobilized using 500 mL/min of CO2

lightly blown over them. Aedes albopictus were placed into a 41 cm x 41 cm x 46 cm cage and

all other mosquito species were discarded. Adult Ae. albopictus were offered restrained chickens

of various breeds for blood meals (IACUC #D469). Eggs were collected on moistened brown

paper, dried, and stored for approximately one week in a cool, dry Ziploc bag. Adults were

raised on 10% sugar water solution. Mosquitoes were maintained at 28 1C and 90 4% RH

on a 14: 10 L: D cycle. Larvae were fed a 50 mL slurry of 3% bovine liver powder and 2%

brewers yeast provided every other day. The F2 progeny were used for the experiments reported

here.

Chickens used for routine colony feeding were of various breeds and were obtained by the

USDA-CMAVE. All chickens used for colony feeding were housed at the USDA-CMAVE.

Mark-Release-Recapture Studies

Mosquitoes were aspirated from emergence cages with a hand-held aspirator (Hausherr's

Machine Works, Toms River, N.J.). They were temporarily immobilized with CO2 at a rate of

500 mL/min. The exact number of females required for each experiment were counted and









placed into cardboard cups with screen lids. The inside of the cups were lightly dusted with red,

white, blue, yellow, green, or orange fluorescent powder (Pylam Products Co., Tempe, AZ).

Each trial and cage was assigned a specific color for that day or night. A water-moistened cotton

ball was placed on top of the screen to keep the humidity high. Mosquitoes were given at least

30 minutes to recover from the CO2 before being released in trials. The cup was placed on top of

the inner experimental cage, the lid rapidly removed, and the cage portal and mesh sealed. At

the completion of the trial all mosquitoes were aspirated from the cage. Any mosquitoes that

were dead inside the cup were noted and excluded from statistical analysis. Mosquitoes were

observed under black light (Adams Apple Distributing LP, Glenview, IL) to determine which

trial they were released. Mosquito blood-fed status was recorded. Partial blood meals were

counted as blood-fed. The location where each mosquito was recovered in the cage at the end of

each trial was recorded. All statistical analyses were performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test

(Ott and Longnecker 2001).

Chickens

Chickens used for behavior experiments were 25 to 28 week old white leghorns obtained

by Orange County Mosquito Control (OCMCD). All chickens used for experiments were cared

for under #D996 University of Florida IACUC protocols and were housed on the University of

Florida main campus behind the Entomology and Nematology building in Gainesville, FL.

Chickens, housed behind the Entomology and Nematology building, were exposed to natural

populations of mosquitoes prior to experimental exposure.

Host Defensive Behavior

Chicken behavior was monitored during three different time periods (sunset, sunrise, and

11:00 am). Chickens were observed at distances of 26.5 m or 12.2 m, dependent on light levels

and visibility, with 10 x 42 Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class binoculars. Some behaviors









were also observed at close range (i.e., eye blink and the physical consumption of mosquitoes)

while mosquitoes were aspirated from the sentinel cages. Host defensive behaviors were

observed immediately after the release of Cx. nigripalpus until all the chickens roosted; at

sunrise for 30 min with Cx. nigripalpus; and for 30 min immediately after release ofAe.

albopictus. Chicken behavior was observed for several minutes prior to release of mosquitoes to

determine routine maintenance behaviors. Every type of maintenance and defensive behavior

displayed was recorded. Defensive behaviors observed are presented in Table 3-3. Descriptive

comparisons were made among the types of behaviors displayed in response to the various

species of mosquitoes, densities of mosquitoes and densities of chickens (Table 3-4).

Effect of Host Defensive Behavior

Host defensive behavior trials were conducted in outdoor cages at the U.S.D.A. -

C.M.A.V.E. facility in Gainesville, FL between July 26 and August 13, 2005. One chicken was

placed in each sentinel cage 1 to 2 h before mosquitoes were released. Three-hundred 6 to 14-

day-old adult Cx. nigripalpus females were released into each cage at sunset. This experiment

was replicated four times. Mosquitoes were recovered from the cages at 8:00 am the following

morning.

Three-hundred 7 to 12-day-old adult Ae. albopictus females were released into each cage at

11:00 am. This experiment was replicated four times. Aedes albopictus females were recovered

by aspiration from the cage at 5:00 pm at the end of each trial.

For trials with each mosquito species, one cage contained an unrestrained chicken that was

allowed total freedom of movement. The second cage contained a restrained chicken that was fit

snugly into a nylon mesh laundry bag that restricted any head, wing, or leg movement. Three

individual chickens were used for these experiments. Chickens were rotated between the

restrained and unrestrained treatments and between cages. Cages containing restrained and









unrestrained chickens were rotated between each trial to negate differences in the ability of each

cage to contain mosquitoes. All statistical analyses were performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum

test (Ott and Longnecker 2001).

To evaluate the importance of mosquito and vertebrate host density on mosquito blood

feeding success one chicken was placed into one of the cages and four chickens were placed into

the second cage one or two hours before the mosquitoes were released. An equal predetermined

(100, 500, or 700) number of 6 to 15-day-old adult Cx. nigripalpus females were released into

both cages at sunset. Released mosquitoes were aspirated from both cages at 8:00 am the

following morning. Four trials were conducted with each density of mosquitoes. Five individual

chickens were used for these experiments. Chickens were rotated so that no chicken was used

more than once by itself in the single chicken cage at each mosquito density. Cages containing

one and four chickens were rotated between each trial to negate differences in the cages ability to

contain mosquitoes. All statistical analyses were performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (Ott

and Longnecker 2001).

Results

Chicken defensive behaviors had no significant effect on the percent of Cx. nigripalpus

females recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.05), their blood feeding success (Wilcoxon

Rank Sum test, P > 0.025), or the location in the cage from which the mosquitoes were recovered

(Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025).

Chicken defensive behaviors were found to significantly lower the blood feeding success

ofAe. albopictus females (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test P < 0.025) (Table 3-1); however, these

behaviors had no significant effect on the percent ofAe. albopictus recovered (Wilcoxon Rank

Sum test, P > 0.05) or the location in the cage from which the mosquitoes were recovered

(Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025) (Table 3-1).









No significant differences were found between the one and four chicken trials at any

mosquito density (100, 500, or 700) for the percent of Cx. nigripalpus recovered (Wilcoxon

Rank Sum test, P > 0.05), the percent that were blood-fed (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P > 0.025);

or the location in the cage from which the mosquitoes were recovered (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test,

P > 0.025). Mosquito blood feeding success in trials with one chicken were significantly

different between the 100 and 700 mosquito densities and between the 100 and 500 mosquito

densities (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025).

An inverse correlation was observed as Cx. nigripalpus density increased, blood feeding

success decreased when one chicken was present (Table 3-2). When one chicken was present the

percent of Cx. nigripalpus recovered from the exit trap differed significantly between the 300

and 500 densities and between the 500 and 700 densities (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025)

with the 500 density being significantly less than the 300 and 700 densities (Table 3-2).

Discussion

Anderson and Brust (1996) exposed pairs of Japanese Quail (Coturnixjaponica) to Cx.

nigripalpus or Ae. aegypti and video tapped Quail activity before and after the release of

mosquitoes. They concluded that anti-mosquito behaviors were exaggerations of pre-existing

behavioral patterns (Anderson and Brust 1996). This increase of normal body maintenance

behaviors in response to mosquito (Cx. nigripalpus) biting pressure has also been observed with

ciconiiform birds (Webber and Edman 1972). In the current experiments, it appeared that

chickens used routine maintenance behaviors as defensive behaviors in response to mosquito

biting pressure. Through direct observation it was shown that all of the maintenance behaviors

displayed in the absence of mosquitoes were displayed more often in the presence of mosquitoes.

The preening and head scratching behavior observed in the present study may have been in

response to mosquito or louse biting pressure. Menopon gallinae (Linnaeus) (Phthiraptera:









Philopteridae), the shaft louse, was occasionally found on the chickens used for these

experiments. Estimates of louse load were not made in the study but symptoms of heavy

infestation (i.e., feather loss and lameness) were never observed. Whether preening and head

scratching behaviors were in response to mosquitoes or lice could not be determined. Preening

and head scratching, however, occurred more often in the presence of mosquitoes than in their

absence. The only defensive behaviors not observed in the absence of mosquitoes were the wing

shrug and head tuck. Wing shrugging behavior was only displayed when four chickens were

present at the 700 mosquito density, suggesting that it may only be reserved for periods of highly

elevated agitation.

Several times in the commentary section of Table 3-4 defensive behavior was described as

occurring often in the presence of a particular mosquito species. This means that while the

behavior was displayed in the presence of both mosquito species, it was displayed much more

frequently in the presence of the mentioned species and therefore is attributed to that species.

Aedes albopictus appeared to attempt to blood feed around the face and head regions due to the

many defensive behaviors displayed by the chickens such as the head rub, head shake, head jerk,

head tuck, pecking at the air, and eye blink. Culex nigripalpus appeared to attempt to feed

around the legs and feet because the primary responses elicited from chickens in the presence of

this mosquito species were the foot kick/stamp and pecking at the ground and legs. Webber and

Edman (1972) observed that Cx. nigripalpus primarily feed around the leg region of ciconiiform

birds.

Chicken defensive behaviors had a negative influence on the blood feeding success

(Wilcoxon rank sum P < 0.025) and caused high mortality ofAe. albopictus (Table 3-1). Similar

results were found by Waage and Nondo (1982) in restraint trials with rabbits and Ae. aegypti.









Klowden and Lea (1979) found unrestrained rabbits significantly lowered the percent blood

feeding success of wild, host seeking mosquitoes when compared to restrained rabbits. All three

of these experiments were conducted during the photophase period of mosquito host seeking

activity and coincided with diurnally active time periods of their hosts. In the experiments

reported here, unrestrained chickens displayed defensive behaviors in response to mosquito

biting pressure throughout the entire duration of the trials with Ae. albopictus. It could not be

determined whether the constant chicken activity was due to the time of day or the host feeding

behaviors ofAe. albopictus. The increased activity of chickens during the daytime, the reduced

(80.0 4.1% restrained > 40.1 + 12.5% unrestrained) recovery rate ofAe. albopictus and

significantly (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) lowered blood feeding on unrestrained

chickens indicate that unrestrained sentinel chickens in the field may reduce the number of

daytime biting mosquitoes that enter the cage and reduce the likelihood of them obtaining a

blood meal.

Culex nigripalpus trials with restrained and unrestrained chickens showed a slight

reduction in recovery rates of mosquitoes and no differences in blood feeding success (Table

3-1). These results differ from the restraint trials conducted by Edman and Kale (1971) with

nocturnally active ciconiiform birds and Cx. nigripalpus. Unrestrained chickens displayed very

few defensive behaviors when Cx. nigripalpus were released at sunset because chickens roost at

sunset and wake at sunrise (Appleby et al. 2004). However, unrestrained chickens displayed

more defensive behaviors shortly after sunrise than at sunset. Day and Edman (1984) found that

mosquito blood feeding success occurs more often during host seeking periods that overlap with

periods of inactivity by hosts. Since both the restrained and the unrestrained chicken were









inactive throughout the night, when Cx. nigripalpus feeds, there were no differences in blood

feeding success between the two treatments.

Trials in which one chicken was exposed to increasing densities of Cx. nigripalpus showed

a significant negative correlation (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, P < 0.025) between the number of

mosquitoes released and the percent that successfully obtained blood meals (Table 3-2). This

negative correlation between increasing density and blood meal success was counterintuitive. If

chickens were inactive during the primary host seeking period of Cx. nigripalpus then there

should have been no significant difference in blood feeding success at the various densities. At

the 500 and 700 Cx. nigripalpus densities little defensive behavior activity was displayed by

chickens at sunset, but at sunrise chickens were very active. The bulk of chicken morning

activities involved pecking at their legs and the ground. It was observed at close range that

pecking at the ground was done in an attempt to consume mosquitoes. After Cx. nigripalpus had

engorged it would usually travel a short distance to the nearest resting spot. Dozens of blood-fed

Cx. nigripalpus were found resting on the inner cage where they were accessible to chickens. If

chickens peck and consume primarily blood fed mosquitoes resting near them, then the chickens

would skew the percent of blood fed mosquitoes that were recovered. The heightened activity of

chickens and pecking behavior in the early morning make this the most likely time period during

which Cx. nigripalpus were consumed. In field settings, this means that mosquitoes should be

aspirated shortly after sunrise to reduce the likelihood of mosquitoes being consumed by the

sentinel chickens.

No significant trend was found between blood meal success or recovery rates and mosquito

density when four chickens were exposed to varying densities of Cx. nigripalpus. Roughly 80%

percent of all Cx. nigripalpus that were released were recovered. Although there were no









significant differences found when comparing the recovery rates and blood feeding success

between one and four chickens, with four chickens there was an increase in the percent of blood-

fed mosquitoes recovered at the 500 (45.7%) and 700 (56.7%) mosquito density trials compared

with trials containing one chicken at the 500 (35.8%) and 700 (35.7%) mosquito densities.

Chickens in groups of four appeared more concerned with the presence of other chickens than

with the presence of mosquitoes. Fewer defensive behaviors toward mosquitoes were observed

in cages containing four chickens than cages containing one chicken. The four chickens would

peck at each other to assert dominance. Aggression toward other chickens likely distracted

chickens from the presence of mosquitoes which allowed more mosquitoes to obtain blood meals

and avoid consumption by chickens. In field settings, four or more chickens should be exposed

in the same cage to increase the survival and number of day feeding mosquitoes that obtain blood

meals.

Exit trap collections were not significantly different between restrained and unrestrained

chicken trials for Cx. nigripalpus orAe. albopictus (Table 3-1). There were no discernable

patterns of exit trap recovery rates at different densities of Cx. nigripalpus (Table 3-2). It does

not appear that chicken defensive behaviors influence the percent of mosquitoes captured in the

exit trap.

An important point to note is the lower percent ofAe. albopictus (8.1%) recovered in the

exit trap during restrained chicken trials compared to the percent of Cx. nigripalpus (41.3%)

recovered during similar trials. This difference in the percent of mosquitoes recovered between

Ae. albopictus and Cx. nigripalpus during a time when chickens could not display defensive

behaviors, demonstrates that Ae. albopictus is not as likely to be recovered in the exit trap as Cx.

nigripalpus. Exit trap collections from sentinel chicken cages in the field may not accurately









represent all mosquito species or the abundance of those species that come to feed on the sentinel

chickens. The absence, or low abundance of certain mosquito species in exit traps collections

from sentinel chicken cages does not exclude these species from being potential enzootic vectors

of viral disease in avian populations.

Conclusions

Chicken defensive behaviors are maintenance behaviors displayed at greater frequencies in

the presence of mosquitoes. Chickens may display different defensive behaviors depending

upon the preference of the mosquito blood feeding site. Sentinel chicken defensive behaviors

can influence mosquito recovery rates and the blood feeding success of recovered mosquitoes.

Diurnally active mosquitoes were more likely than nocturnal mosquitoes to be consumed and

have reduced blood feeding success. Increasing densities of mosquitoes feeding on chickens can

influence the percent of blood-fed mosquitoes recovered when one chicken was present. At least

four chickens should be exposed at sentinel sites to reduce the number of mosquitoes that are

consumed and increase the number of mosquitoes that obtain blood. Exit trap collections did not

appear to be influenced by chicken defensive behaviors. Exit trap collections may not accurately

sample all of the mosquito species that are attracted to sentinel chicken surveillance cages.









Table 3-1. Effect of host defensive behavior on recovery, blood feeding success, and location recovered*
Percent mosquitoes recovered Percent mosquitoes engorged Percent mosquitoes recovered from exit trap
Species Restrained Unrestrained Restrained Unrestrained Restrained Unrestrained
Cx. nigripalpus 90.2 3.1 77.7 11.0 50.2 7.2 52.7 8.6 41.3 10.3 56.5 3.8
Ae. albopictus 80.0 4.1 40.1 + 12.5 22.2 3.4a 6.1 + 1.9b 8.1 + 1.4 18.9 6.7
* Means and standard errors of recovered mosquitoes as a percent of total mosquitoes released, engorgement and exit trap as a
percent of mosquitoes recovered.

Table 3-2. Effect of Cx. nigripalpus density on recovery, blood feeding success, and location recovered when one or four chickens
were present*
Percent mosquitoes recovered Percent mosquitoes engorged Percent mosquitoes recovered from exit trap
Density One chicken Four chickens One chicken Four chickens One chicken Four chickens
100 74.2 + 12.2 80.1 + 3.6 58.9 + 4.2a 58.2 + 5.8 54.2 + 6.9a,b 43 10.9
300a 77.7 + 11.0 -- 52.7 8.6a,b -- 56.5 3.8a --
500 86.3 + 1.7 76.2 + 6.9 35.8 + 4.1b 45.7 + 8.8 37.8 5.2b 45.2 + 7.2
700 82.6 + 3.3 85.6 + 1.9 35.7 + 6.2b 56.7 + 8.5 67.1 + 3.6a 63.0 + 2.5
* Means and standard errors of recovered mosquitoes as a percent of total mosquitoes released, engorgement and exit trap as
percent of mosquitoes recovered.
a Data from unrestrained trials presented earlier.









Table 3-3. Behaviors
Behavior
Eye blink
Head jerk
Peck

Head shake
Head scratch
Foot kick/stamp
Wing flap
Hind feather ruffle
Preening
Head rub
Head tuck

Wing shrug


displayed by chickens in response to mosquitoes
Description
An eye was closed and opened rapidly
Head was moved forward and backward or side to side in a rapid jerking motion
The head was moved forward and backward in a pecking manner
The behavior was used to peck at the air, ground or legs
The head was vigorously shaken side to side
The foot was used to scratch the neck and head region
The foot was quickly raised into the air and lowered
The wings were spread out and retracted in a manner similar to flapping
The rear portion of the chicken shook, ruffling the feathers outward away from the body
Chicken used its beak to scratch amongst feathered regions
Chicken rubbed its head against vigorously against its body
Chicken buried its head beneath its wing for extended for several minutes without preening
Chicken lowered its body close to the ground and shrugged its wings upward and kept wings pressed
against its body









Table 3-4. Defensive behaviors displayed by chickens in the presence of mosquitoes with commentary


Behavior
Eye blink
Head jerk
Peck

Head shake

Head scratch

Foot kick/stamp
Wing flap

Hind feather
ruffle
Preening

Head rub

Head tuck


Wing shrug


Comments
This behavior occurred when Ae. albopictus flew near the chicken's face.
A head jerk was often performed in response to Ae. albopictus presence.
Pecking at the air was often performed in response to Ae. albopictus presence.
Pecking at the ground or legs was often performed in response to Cx. nigripalpus.
This was most often performed in the presence ofAe. albopictus. It was probably done in attempt to
dislodge a feeding mosquito from the face, head or neck region.
This behavior may have been performed in response to mosquitoes or to the shaft louse, Menopon
gallinae(L.). This behavior was observed more frequently in the presence ofAe. albopictus.
This behavior was frequently displayed at densities of 500 and 700 Cx. nigripalpus.
This behavior was usually observed when a chicken repositions itself before going to roost and may
not have been in response to mosquito attack.

This behavior was performed in response to Ae. albopictus and Cx. nigripalpus.
This may have been a response to mosquitoes or lice. Preening was performed over all feathered
regions of the body and in the presence of both mosquito species.
This behavior was displayed in response to Ae. albopictus in attempt to dislodge mosquitoes from the face
and head regions.
This behavior was displayed only in presence ofAe. albopictus and was likely done to prevent mosquitoes
from feeding near face and head regions.
This behavior was only observed at the 700 density of Cx. nigripalpus with four chickens present.









CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SITES: ARBOVIRUSES/VECTORS/HOSTS

Introduction

Orange County Mosquito Control Division (OCMCD) conducts arbovirus surveillance

with sentinel chickens year round. There are twelve sentinel chicken sites maintained by

OCMCD in Orange County. Two of the twelve sentinel chicken sites were chosen for

experimental sentinel chicken surveillance and mosquito collection for the present study. The

two sites were Tibet-Butler Preserve (TBP) and Moss Park (MP).

Three factors led to the decision to conduct field research at TBP and MP. The first factor

was frequent seroconversions of sentinel chickens from October through June. Field studies

were conducted from October 12, 2005 to July 4, 2006. Historically, several EEEV and WNV

sentinel chicken seroconversions have occurred during October through June in Orange County.

The second factor for site selection was higher mosquito species diversity as determined by

OCMCD sentinel chicken exit trap collections from 2003 and 2004. Mosquito species diversity

ranged from fourteen (Winter Park and Clarcona-Horseman Park) to twenty-nine (Fort

Christmas) mosquito species in sentinel chicken exit trap collections (OCMCD data). The third

factor for site selection was lower mosquito abundance as determined by sentinel chicken exit

trap collections from 2003 and 2004. Sentinel chicken exit traps at some locations in Orange

County have collected 60,000 (Blanchard Park) Cx. nigripalpus in one night (September 21,

2004; OCMCD data). Lower mosquito abundance in exit traps would reduce the cost of testing

mosquitoes for arboviruses for this project.

Tibet-Butler Preserve and MP are managed by Orange County Parks and Recreation

(OCPR). Both parks are located outside of the Orlando metropolitan area. As the human

population continues to expand and spread away from Orlando, the parks have become









surrounded by residential areas. While both parks allow the preservation of unique habitats and

provide excellent opportunities for human recreation, they are also reservoirs for large numbers

of birds and mosquitoes which may circulate arboviruses that affect humans. The close

association of humans and wildlife at both parks calls for in-depth study to understand the

ecology of arbovirus transmission at these sites. Understanding arbovirus transmission cycles at

TBP and MP would be beneficial for OCMCD and the Orange County Public Health Department

as they attempt to reduce the risk of arbovirus transmission to humans.

Orange County is located along the Atlantic Flyway, a major bird migration route along

the east coast of the United States (Lord and Calisher 1970). The hot and moist environment of

Orange County provides suitable habitat for migrant birds, transient (birds migrating further

south or north that use Florida as a temporary stopover site) birds, and resident birds. Some

birds, such as the Red-winged Blackbird and Wood Stork, have populations that make north-

central Florida their permanent area of residence, while other populations of the same species use

this area to overwinter (Favorite 1960).

Site Descriptions

Tibet-Butler Preserve

The 438 acres known as the TBP is owned by the South Florida Water Management

District. Tibet-Butler Preserve is located in the southwest corner of Orange County along the

Tibet-Butler chain of lakes (Figure 4-1). Public activity within the park is limited to daytime

use, which reduces the potential for arbovirus transmission to humans by nocturnally active

mosquitoes inside park boundaries. Immediately to the south of the park are active, drip-

irrigated orange groves, and undeveloped land (Figure 4-2). Adjacent to the southwest corner of

TBP is residential housing. Adjacent to the east and west of TBP, orange groves have been









converted to high-end housing communities. The preserve abuts Lake Tibet to the northeast.

Houses are located along the banks of Lake Tibet.

Many habitats are present in TBP including bayhead and cypress swamps, freshwater

marsh, scrub, and pine flatwoods. The bayhead swamp is dominated by loblolly (Gordonia

lasianthus), red (Persea borbonia), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) trees and comprises the

northwestern portion of the park. The freshwater marsh is dominated by sawgrass (Cladium

jamaicense) and waterlily (Nymphaea odorata). Numerous aquatic plant species, such as Water

Lettuce (Psitia stratiotes), Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Maidencane (Panicum

hemitomon), Cattail (Typha spp.), Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and several sedge species

were found in the marsh and lake margins of TBP. These aquatic plant species create ideal larval

habitat for Cq. perturbans, Ma. titillans, and Ma. dyari (Morris et al. 1990, Lounibos and Escher

1985, Slaff and Haefner 1985, Callahan and Morris 1987).

To the south of Lake Tibet is a cypress dome where large sections of trees were knocked

down by the hurricanes of 2004. Upturned cypress (Cupressus spp.) tree roots create ideal

breeding habitat for mosquitoes, especially Cs. melanura (Foster and Walker 2002). To the

southwest of Lake Tibet is an undamaged cypress dome. In the eastern half of the park, there is

a mixed wetland forest with pine (Pinus spp.) flatwoods, bayhead and cypress swamp

communities. Various pine, bay, and cypress trees create the forest canopy depending on the

ground elevation. Various areas of the east side of the park flood and drain throughout the year

which provides temporary and semi-permanent pools of water, ideal habitat for Aedes,

Psorophora, Culex, and Anopheles larvae (Foster and Walker 2002, personal observation,

OCMCD data). The east side of the park is adjacent to residential neighborhoods along the









easternmost edge and Aedes albopictus larvae have been found in containers inside this area

(personal observation).

The southwest portion of the park is xeric, elevated two to three feet above the swamp,

composed of scrub and pine flatwood communities, and an understory dominated by saw

palmetto (Serenoa repens). The OCMCD sentinel chickens and those used in this investigation,

were located in this section of the park near the visitor center. The chickens were held in areas

cleared as fire breaks. In the southwestern corner of the park, there was a small section of oak

hammock dominated by Turkey (Quercus laevis), Live (Quercus viginiana), and Chapman's

(Quercus chapmanii) oak. Mosquito larvae were rarely found on this side of the park (OCMCD

data). Aedes albopictus have been found in containers near the visitor center (personal

observation).

Moss Park

Moss Park is located in the southeast portion of Orange County between Lakes Hart and

Mary Jane which are part of the St. John's Water Management District (Figure 4-1). The

surrounding banks of both Lakes Hart and Mary Jane have residential housing. Moss Park is a

peninsula of land with Lake Hart to the west, Lake Mary Jane to the east, and Pickerelweed

marsh establishing the southern boundary of the park. Moss Park is predominantly mature

Laurel (Quercus hemisphaerica) and Live Oak hammocks, and Pine trees with the understory

managed for human recreational activities. In the southern half of the park camping is allowed

and many visitors take advantage of this throughout the year. To the west of Moss Park and

south of Lake Hart is Split Oak Preserve. Split Oak Preserve consists of pine flatwoods and oak

hammocks interspersed with small ponds. Moss Park and Split Oak Preserve together span 3351

acres (Figure 4-3). There were two locations at MP that experimental sentinel chickens were

housed. The original experimental cage location was toward the back half of the park near the









pickerel reed marsh (Figure 4-3). After five trap nights, the cage had to be removed by request

of the park manager. It was relocated in a fenced off area near the county sentinel chickens.

At times during the wet season, Moss Park will flood in various regions along the marsh

and lake edges. This periodic flooding creates temporary and semi-permanent pools, ideal

habitat for Culex, Anopheles, Aedes, and Psorophora larvae (Foster and Walker 2002, OCMCD

data). For the rest of the year larval habitats are restricted to the marsh and shallow edges of

Lakes Hart and Mary Jane (OCMCD data, personal observation). Lakes Hart and Mary Jane

contain many aquatic plant species including Cattail, Pickerelweed, Arrow arum (Peltandra

virginica), Maidencane, Water Hyacinth, and numerous sedge species. These plants create ideal

larval habitat for Cq. perturbans, Ma. titillans, and Ma. dyari (Morris et al. 1990, Lounibos and

Escher 1985, Slaff and Haefner 1985, Callahan and Morris 1987). Anopheles spp. and Cx.

erraticus larvae have been found along the edges of Lake Mary Jane. Several areas of the park

are designated as repositories for human refuse which provides larval habitats for Ae. albopictus

and other container inhabiting mosquitoes.

Arboviruses

Tibet-Butler Preserve

Sentinel chicken surveillance began at TBP in 1995. Eastern equine encephalitis virus

transmission at TBP was the highest of the twelve sentinel chicken surveillance sites operated by

OCMCD. From 1995 through 2004, the mean annual seroconversion rate (MASR) of sentinel

chickens for EEEV at TBP was 33.6% (44/131). Mean annual seroconversion rates for EEEV at

the other eleven sites ranged from 0 to 16.5% (43/261) (Table 4-1). In 2002, four often

seroconversions to EEEV occurred between January and March at TBP.

St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission at TBP was the seventh highest of the twelve

sentinel chicken surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 1995 through 2004, the MASR









of sentinel chickens for SLEV at TBP was 5.3% (7/131). All SLEV transmission to sentinel

chickens occurred in 1996 and 1997. Mean annual seroconversion rates for SLEV at the other

eleven sites ranged from 0 to 17.4% (8/46) (Table 4-2).

West Nile virus transmission at TBP is the sixth highest of the twelve sentinel chicken

surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 2001 through 2004, the MASR for WNV was

30.8% (20/65). However, WNV was not detected by sentinel chickens in Orange County until

2001, so this data only represents four years of surveillance. Mean annual seroconversion rates

for WNV at the other eleven sites ranged from 7.7% (2/26) to 40% (16/40) (Table 4-3). In 2002

and 2003, four of twenty-one and four of twenty WNV seroconversions occurred between

October and December at TBP.

Moss Park

Sentinel chicken surveillance began at MP in 1991. Eastern equine encephalitis virus

transmission at MP was the eighth highest of the twelve sentinel chicken surveillance sites

operated by OCMCD. From 1991 through 2004 the MASR of sentinel chickens for EEEV was

4.5% (5/111). Mean annual seroconversion rates for EEEV at the other eleven sites ranged from

0% to 33.6% (44/131) (Table 4-1).

St. Louis encephalitis virus transmission at MP was the sixth highest of all twelve sentinel

chicken surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 1991 through 2004 the MASR of sentinel

chickens for SLEV was 7.2% (8/111) with all seroconversions occurring in 1997. Mean annual

seroconversion rates for SLEV at the other eleven sites ranged from 0 to 17.4% (8/46) (Table 4-

2). The only SLEV seroconversion between 2001 and 2006 in Orange County occurred at MP in

December of 2001.

West Nile virus transmission at MP was the second highest of all twelve sentinel chicken

surveillance sites operated by OCMCD. From 2001 through 2004 the MASR of sentinel









chickens for WNV was 35.9% (14/39). The high level of WNV activity is a threat to people

camping at MP. The MASR for MP only represents the first four years of surveillance data

which may account for the higher transmission rate. Mean ASRs for WNV at the other eleven

sites ranged from 7.7% (2/26) to 40.0% (16/40) (Table 4-3). In 2002 and 2003, five of twenty-

one and two of twenty WNV seroconversions occurred between October and December at MP.

Vectors of Arboviruses

Tibet-Butler Preserve had twenty different species of mosquitoes captured in exit traps

from July 2003 through December 2004. Moss Park had nineteen different species of

mosquitoes captured in exit traps from July 2003 through December 2004.

Culiseta melanura, the primary epizootic vector of EEEV (Scott and Weaver 1989), is

frequently captured in light traps at TBP. Culiseta melanura is infrequently captured in light

traps at MP. Frequently captured, potential secondary epizootic or bridge vectors of EEEV at

TBP and MP include Ae. albopictus (Scott et al. 1990b, Mitchell et al. 1992), Cq. perturbans

(Scott and Weaver 1989), Cx. erraticus (Cupp et al. 2003), An. quadrimaculatus (Vaidyanathan

et al. 1997), and Cx. nigripalpus (Nayar 1982).

Frequently captured vectors of SLEV at MP and TBP include the primary epidemic vector

of SLEV in peninsular Florida, Cx. nigripalpus (Dow et al. 1964) and the potential, secondary

vector of SLEV in the Florida panhandle, Cx. quinquefasciatus (Tsai and Mitchell 1989, McCaig

et al. 1994).

Frequently captured, potential vectors of WNV at TBP include Cx. nigripalpus (Rutledge

et al. 2003, Turell et al. 2005), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Turell et al. 2005), Cs. melanura (Sardelis

et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005), and Ae. albopictus (Sardelis et al. 2002, Turell et al. 2005,).

Frequently captured, potential vectors of WNV at MP include Cx. nigripalpus (Rutledge et al.









2003, Turell et al. 2005), Cx. quinquefasciatus (Turell et al. 2005), and Ae. albopictus (Turell et

al. 2005, Sardelis et al. 2002).

Avian Hosts of Arboviruses

An amplification host is a vertebrate that circulates an arbovirus titer of sufficient

magnitude and duration to infect blood-feeding vectors (Scott 1988). Minimum infection

threshold virus titers required to infect mosquito vectors of EEEV (Cs. melanura) were >103

PFU/mL of blood (Komar et al. 1999), and for SLEV and WNV were >105 PFU/mL of blood

(Sardelis et al. 2001).

Almost 100 bird species have been identified in Tibet-Butler Preserve and Moss Park

(OCPR data). Of these birds only a few are critical for arbovirus amplification.

Several potential amplifying hosts for EEEV in TBP and MP are residents in Florida.

Resident birds are important amplification hosts for arboviruses (Crans et al. 1994). The

Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and Red-

winged Blackbird (Agelaiusphoeniceus) were proven to be efficient hosts of EEEV in the

laboratory (Komar et al. 1999). All three species are common at TBP and MP and were

seropositive for EEEV in Florida in 1958 and 1960-1961 (Favorite 1960, Henderson et al. 1962).

Eastern equine encephalitis virus seropositive rates for the three bird species in Florida were:

Northern Cardinal 34% (10/29), Common Grackle 12% (17/143), and Red-winged Blackbird

19% (3/16) (Favorite 1960, Henderson et al. 1962). Virus isolations of EEEV, from species that

are common residents at TBP and MP include the Common Grackle, Tufted Titmouse

(Baeolophus bicolor), Northern Mockingbird (Mimuspolyglottos), and Carolina Wren

(Thiiy,,th1u, ,n ludovicianus) (Favorite 1960, Henderson et al. 1962, Lord and Calisher 1970).

Several serosurveys performed outside of Florida have isolated EEEV from the Common

yellowthroat (Ge,,11)ypi\ trichas) (Howard et al. 2004), Northern cardinal, and White-eyed vireo









(Vireo griseus) (Lord and Calisher 1970, Stamm et al. 1962, Stamm and Newman 1963). The

Common yellowthroat and Northern cardinal are common residents at TBP and MP. The White-

eyed vireo is a common resident at MP.

Overwintering birds may contribute to EEEV enzootic transmission during amplification

and maintenance phases. Winter migrants, such as the American Robin (Turdus migratorius),

may introduce EEEV from northern breeding sites (Stamm and Newman 1963, Lord and

Calisher 1970). The American Robin and Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) were shown

to be efficient amplifying hosts of EEEV in the laboratory (Komar et al. 1999). The American

Robin is common at TBP. The American Robin and Swamp Sparrow are common at MP. The

American Robin, American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), House Wren (Troglodytes aedon), and

Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) had EEEV isolates from serosurveys conducted

outside of Florida (Howard et al. 2004, McLean et al. 1985, Stamm et al. 1962). The American

Goldfinch and House Wren are common overwintering residents at TBP. The House Wren and

Ruby-crowned Kinglet are common overwintering residents at MP. There are resident and

overwintering populations of the Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) and Gray Catbird

(Dumetella carolinensis) at TBP and MP. Both species are common at TBP and MP. There

have been several virus isolations of EEEV from the Eastern Towhee and Gray Catbird (Favorite

1960, Howard et al. 2004, Lord and Calisher 1970, Stamm and Newman 1963). The Eastern

Towhee population was 18% (4/22) seropositive for EEEV in Orlando (Favorite 1960).

Four common, resident species of TBP and MP, the Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata),

Northern Cardinal, Common Grackle, and Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) were frequently

found seropositive for SLEV in 1990 in Florida (Day and Stark 1999). St. Louis encephalitis

virus rates for the four common, resident birds were: Blue Jay 20% (9/46), Northern Cardinal









6% (1/18), Common Grackle 7% (9/123), and Mourning Dove 56% (75/135) (Day and Stark

1999). The Blue Jay has been implicated in outbreaks of SLEV (McLean and Bowen 1980).

The Common Grackle and Mourning Dove each had two isolations of SLEV in Florida in 1990

(Day and Stark 1999). One SLEV isolate was obtained from the Northern Cardinal in Florida in

1989 (Day and Stark 1999). No migrant species at TBP or MP have been implicated in SLEV

epidemics or had SLEV isolated from them.

Numerous resident species in Florida at TBP are potential amplifying hosts for WNV. The

American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Common Grackle, Blue Jay, Fish Crow (Corvus

ossifragus), Great Homed Owl (Bubo virginianus), and Red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis)

were found to be efficient amplifying hosts of WNV in the laboratory (Komar et al. 2003,

Nemeth et al. 2006). The American Crow, Common Grackle, Blue Jay, Fish Crow, Great

Horned Owl, and Red-tailed Hawk are common residents at TBP. The American Crow,

Common Grackle, Blue Jay, and Fish Crow are common residents at MP. The role of the

American Crow and Blue Jay in WNV transmission may be limited due to the high levels of

mortality these species encounter with WNV infection (Lord et al. 2006). Fifteen percent (2/13)

of Common Grackles were seropositive for WNV in Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al.

2005a). The Red-winged Blackbird has resident and overwintering populations in Florida and is

common at TBP and MP. The Red-winged Blackbird was proven an efficient amplifying host of

WNV in the laboratory (Komar et al. 2003).

Birds that overwinter in Florida may potentially introduce WNV acquired at their northern

breeding grounds (Rappole et al. 2000). The American Robin and Mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos)

were efficient amplification hosts of WNV in the laboratory (Komar et al. 2003). The American

Robin and Mallard are common overwintering birds at TBP. The American Robin is a common









overwintering bird at MP. Seven percent (2/27) of Mallards were seropositive for WNV in

Jefferson County, FL in 2001 (Godsey et al. 2005a).

Discussion

Young nestling House sparrows display fewer defensive behaviors and have elevated

viremias for longer durations than adult counterparts (Scott et al. 1990a). Young nestling birds

would be more likely to be fed upon by mosquitoes due to their reduced host defensive behaviors

compared to their adult counterparts (Scott et al. 1990a, Kale et al. 1972). If young birds remain

viremic at higher magnitudes and for longer duration then the presence of susceptible, young

nestlings may facilitate epidemics. In both TBP and MP amplification transmission is most

likely facilitated by viremic hatching year resident birds.

The highest level of EEEV transmission to sentinel chickens in Orange County was

observed at TBP (MASR 33.6%, 44/131). The bayhead and cypress swamps present at TBP

provide ideal breeding habitat for Cs. melanura which is frequently found at TBP (Foster and

Walker 2002). In contrast, the eighth highest level of EEEV transmission to sentinel chickens in

Orange County was observed at MP (MASR 4.5%, 5/111). There are no bayhead or cypress

swamps at MP and Culiseta melanura is infrequently captured (OCMCD data). Culex

nigripalpus and Cq. perturbans are often caught in sentinel chicken exit traps (OCMCD data)

and may be the vectors of EEEV to sentinel chickens at MP in the absence of Cs. melanura. The

lowered transmission rate of EEEV at MP demonstrates the importance of Cs. melanura

presence for the transmission of EEEV.

The majority of SLEV activity at both TBP and MP occurred in 1997. Neither site had

sentinel chickens present at them during the 1990 SLEV epidemic. In 1997 monthly sentinel

chicken seroconversion rates were above MASRs throughout Florida but only nine human cases









were reported and none from Orange County (Day and Stark 1999). Both MP and TBP provide

suitable habitat for Cx. nigripalpus and numerous potential amplifying hosts of SLEV including

the Blue Jay, Common Grackle, Northern Cardinal, and Mourning Dove. With numerous

potential amplifying hosts of SLEV and the primary epizootic and epidemic vector of SLEV (Cx.

nigripalpus) present, both of these sites should be considered potential foci for SLEV

amplification during SLEV epidemics.

West Nile virus transmission to sentinel chickens at MP was the second highest of the

twelve sentinel sites in Orange County (MASR 35.9%, 14/39). The first detection of WNV in

Florida was in 2001, so information concerning transmission data, potential amplifying hosts,

and potential vectors is limited (Blackmore et al. 2003). The primary implication of amplifying

hosts for WNV transmission have been laboratory studies (Komar et al. 2003, Nemeth et al.

2006, Reisen et al. 2005). Serosurveys of potential amplifying hosts (Godsey et al. 2005a) and

field incrimination of potential vectors of WNV in Florida (Rutledge et al. 2003) have been

limited. Future field studies should elucidate which habitat characteristics, vectors and

amplifying hosts create ideal foci for WNV transmission in Florida.










Table 4-1. Seroconversions for EEEV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004

'o

a -f e j
e *S
-tL cci ^ 2> u ^
-0 C -e

rS .2 0 c ^^o S
H S H H s~fi m CI> _
Cij j j -
CL~ j F9 F


Years of
operation EEEV
EEEV


10 14 27 8


Seroconversions 44 5 43 0


7 4 13 11 5

7 0 9 14 0


3 27 8

4 24 2


# chickens used
EEEV MASR
Rank


131 111 261 72 69 33 95 96 46 34 240 52
33.6 4.5 16.5 0 10.1 0 9.5 14.6 0 11.8 10 3.8


1 8 2 10 5 10 7


3 10 4 6 9


Table 4-2. Seroconversions for SLEV at sites operated by OCMCD from 1978-2004






o0
H C H H CA


Years of
operation SLEV
SLEV
Seroconversions


10 14 27 8

7 8 37 8


7 4 13 11 5


3 27 8


2 1 1 9 8 0 19 0


# chickens used 131 111 261 72 69 33 95 96 46 34 240 52
SLEVMASR 5.3 7.2 14.2 11.1 2.9 3 1.1 9.4 17.4 0 7.9 0


7 6 2 3 9 8 10 4


Rank


1 11 5 11