Depending on the species, mosquitoes can fly at speeds of about 1 to 1.5 miles per hour.

Mosquito species that prefer to breed around the house, such as the Asian Tiger Mosquito, have limited flight ranges of approximately 300 feet. Most species have flight ranges of 1 to 3 miles. Certain large pool breeders in the Midwest are often found up to 7 miles from known breeding spots. The undisputed champions, though, are the saltmarsh breeders, having been known to migrate up to 100 miles in exceptional circumstances. However, distances of 20 to 40 miles are much more common when hosts are scarce. When caught up in updrafts that direct them into winds high above the ground, mosquitoes can be carried great distances.

Smaller species found around houses commonly weigh about 2.5 milligrams. Our largest species weigh in at a whopping 10 milligrams.

When feeding to repletion, mosquitoes imbibe anywhere from 0.001 to 0.01 milliliter.

Female mosquitoes ingest blood so that their eggs can mature and develop before they lay them. It serves no nourishment function. Males do not take blood meals at all. To obtain energy, both male and female mosquitoes feed upon plant nectars - much in the same manner as honeybees.

Mosquitoes fill a variety of niches that Nature provides. As such, placing a value on their existence is generally inappropriate. Although the fossil record is incomplete, they have been known from the Cretaceous Period (about 100 million years ago) in North America. Their adaptability has enabled them to achieve remarkable success, with over 2,700 species worldwide. Mosquitoes serve as food sources for a variety of organisms, but are not crucial to any predator species.

Lifespan varies by species. Most adult female mosquitoes live 2-3 weeks. Some species that overwinter in garages, culverts, and attics can live as long as six months.

Given that Nature abhors a vacuum, other species will fill the niches vacated by the mosquitoes after an initial shuffling period of variable length. Be advised, though, that species replacing mosquitoes may be even worse - it's extremely difficult to predict. Mosquitoes' ability to adapt to changing environments makes them nearly impossible to eradicate.

Generally, mosquitoes that bite humans prefer to fly at heights of less than 25 feet. Asian Tiger Mosquitoes have been found breeding in tree holes over 40 feet above the ground. In Singapore, they have been found in apartments 21 stories above ground. Mosquitoes have been found breeding at altitudes of up to 8,000 feet in the Himalayas and 2,000 feet underground in mines in India.

Many studies have been conducted on this issue in the United States and abroad. In current scientific literature, there is no known instance of a successful transfer of the virus from an infected source to another host by blood-feeding insects under experimental conditions. Virtually all experts have concluded that the insects are not capable of such transmission. Numerous biological reasons support this conclusion, but extensive experimental studies provide the most compelling evidence for it.

HIV DOES NOT replicate in mosquitoes. Thus, mosquitoes cannot serve as a biological vector, unlike those that transmit malaria, yellow fever, or dengue. Mosquitoes digest the virus that causes AIDS. There is no possibility of mechanical transmission (i.e., flying contaminated syringes), even though we all know that dirty needles can transmit HIV. However, the amount of "blood" on a mosquito's mouth parts is tiny compared to what is found on a "dirty" needle. Thus, the risk is proportionally smaller.

Calculations based on the mechanical transmission of anthrax and Rift Valley fever virus, both of which produce very high titers in blood, unlike HIV, showed that it would take about 10,000,000 mosquitoes that first fed on a person with AIDS and then continued feeding on a susceptible person to get one transmission.

Mosquitoes are not flying hypodermic needles. Mosquitoes regurgitate saliva into the bite wound (the usual route for disease transmission) through a separate tube from that through which they imbibe blood.

At least 43 species of mosquitoes have been found infected with the West Nile virus in the United States. Not all of these, however, are capable of maintaining the virus in such a manner as to permit them to transmit it among organisms. Many of these infected mosquitoes feed only upon birds, thus contributing to a cycling of the virus among avian populations. Other species feed on these infective birds and then feed on mammals, including humans. These are called "bridge vectors" because they serve as a conduit for the virus to travel from its reservoir in birds to its final host in humans or other mammals.

In urban settings, Culex pipiens is usually the primary vector. In rural areas, particularly in the western United States, Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of the disease. As control measures for each of these mosquitoes are considerably different, it's essential to know which species are known to be present in your area. Contact your local mosquito abatement district or the Technical Advisor of the American Mosquito Control Association (904-215-3008) for information regarding the mosquitoes found in your area.

West Virginia has the fewest species (26), while Texas has the most species (85). Determining the absolute numbers of mosquitoes for each state is extremely difficult, however, as mosquito populations tend to be focal, depending on the amount of breeding habitat, potential hosts, and climatological factors, regardless of the number of species. Thus, relatively dry places like Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico may have intense mosquito activity in areas where water is present. Alaska has a relatively short season, but biting activity during that time is prodigious, indeed. Mosquitoes are particularly prolific in areas with rice farming, extensive salt marsh or dredge spoil.

Why some people seem to be more attractive to mosquitoes than others is the subject of much research on repellents (and attractants for traps) being conducted nationwide. Carbon dioxide is the most universally recognized attractant for mosquitoes, drawing them from distances of up to 35 meters. When female mosquitoes sense carbon dioxide, they usually adopt a zigzagging flight path within the plume to locate its source. Once in the general vicinity of a potential host, other cues predominate, including body odors (such as sweat and lactic acid) and heat. Odors produced by the skin's microflora also play a role in attracting the mosquito to land. Over 350 compounds have been isolated from odors produced by human skin. Either singly or in combination, many of these compounds may serve as attractants, and many may also act as repellents.

The situation is complex and will require several years of testing before it can be resolved. Visual stimuli, such as movement, also play a significant role in host-seeking behavior. What can be safely stated, though, is that ingestion of garlic, vitamin B12, and other systemics has been proven in controlled laboratory studies to have no impact on mosquito biting. Conversely, eating bananas did not attract mosquitoes as the myth suggests, but wearing perfumes does. People drinking beer are more attractive to mosquitoes. Limburger cheese has also been found to be attractive. Scientists have theorized that this may explain the attraction some mosquitoes find in human feet.

N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (DEET) remains the standard by which all other repellents are judged. DEET was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and was registered for public use in 1957. It is effective against mosquitoes, biting flies, chiggers, fleas, and ticks. Over 25 years of empirical testing of more than 20,000 other compounds has not resulted in another marketed chemical product with the duration of protection and broad-spectrum effectiveness of DEET. However, the recent additions of picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus are remarkably effective, closely matching DEET. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all family members over the age of two months use DEET-based repellents with concentrations of up to 30% with confidence.

DEET-based repellents have been around for more than 50 years, but that hasn't stopped the manufacturers of these products from innovating with new fragrances, formulations, product types, and, best of all, products that feel pleasant when applied. The DEET-based repellent fragrances are pleasant to use and range from fruity to woodsy neutral scents. Unscented products have a slight alcohol odor (due to the presence of alcohol in the formulation) until they dry on the skin. Folks who tend to be allergic to fragrances should try the unscented products.

Today's products start at a concentration of 5% (lasting approximately 90 minutes) and range up to 100% (protecting from bites for approximately 10 hours). Pick one that matches your activity. For an outdoor family barbecue in the evenings, a 10% product is fine. It will help protect from bites for approximately 90 minutes to two hours. Products are available in aerosols, pump sprays, lotions, creams and even towelettes. These are individually packaged and are also sold in a handy plastic container that allows the towelettes to pop up one at a time. There are water-resistant and water-repellent products. One brand utilizes a microencapsulation process that will enable DEET to release over time after application. Another goes on dry from an aerosol can, just as powder antiperspirants do.

For those in tick country, it's essential to use a product with at least a 20% concentration. Lower concentrations of all EPA-registered repellents are not effective at warding off ticks. The most apparent repellency failures with DEET are often due to improper application, so care should be taken to apply it thoroughly (avoiding the eyes and mucous membranes) and to reapply when necessary. Proper application is crucial to maintain the DEET vapor barrier above the skin. New polymerized 30% DEET cream formulations provide excellent protection, not significantly exceeded by higher DEET concentrations. Physicians recommend using a formulation of no more than 10% DEET on children; however, formulations of over 30% can be used in areas of high disease incidence if the label directions are followed.

In April 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began recommending two new active ingredients as safe, effective repellents. The first of these is picaridin, a synthetic developed by Bayer Corporation in the 1980s. This repellent is the most widely used in the world outside of the United States and is marketed as Cutter Advanced. Picaridin is odorless, has a pleasant feel and doesn't plasticize like DEET. Studies have shown it to be as effective as DEET in repelling mosquitoes and can also be applied to infants as young as 2 months. The 15% picaridin formulation, Cutter Advanced Sport, is also an effective tick repellent.

The other repellent, often the choice of those wanting a natural product, is the oil of lemon-eucalyptus, sold as Repel®. Repel is a 40% formulation of naturally-derived eucalyptus and has a pleasant scent and feel without any plasticizing properties. It is also effective at repelling ticks. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has further registered two additional repellents: Metofluthrin, a spatial repellent, and a catnip formulation (not yet marketed). Metofluthrin is currently sold as OFF! Clip-Ons is a battery-operated system that allows the metofluthrin to volatilize from a wicking substrate and utilizes the battery to blow the substance around the body, providing protection. Efficacy studies are currently underway, so I can't speak to its effectiveness yet in a field setting. In the laboratory, metofluthrin both repels and kills flying insects. Catnip has been noted for years to possess repellent properties against mosquitoes. However, its efficacy has only recently been demonstrated to the extent that the EPA could register it. DuPont has engineered a catnip formulation that exhibits the traits of a commercially effective repellent and has registered the product with the EPA. A commercial version is not yet available, though. Catnip products currently available through internet suppliers do not possess an EPA registration that validates their efficacy.

Mosquito coils and Therma-cell devices can also provide some protection. Both utilize a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide that has repellent properties but is most effective in situations of little wind, where the repellent mixture remains in place in the air column surrounding the body. The Therma-cell is a favorite among hunters. Another option may be to obtain and wear clothing impregnated with permethrin. Marketed under the name Insect Shield, these clothing articles employ a process of impregnating permethrin into fabric that retains its repellency through 70 washings. The Department of Defense utilizes this process to impregnate battle dress uniforms for operational forces, protecting troops from arthropod-borne diseases overseas. This method is highly effective at repelling all flying insects, as well as ticks and mites. The EPA has registered permethrin for this use, and this method of repellency is endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Mosquitoes are singularly adept at entering houses through any available portal, whether it be through broken windows or door screens, attic soffits, or bathroom exhaust vents. A favorite resting spot is the garage, so take care to keep female mosquitoes from coming into the house through the garage.

If possible, schedule your activities to avoid the times when mosquitoes are most active, usually around dawn and dusk. You should also dress in light, loose-fitting clothing. If you have a deck, consider lighting it with General Electric's yellow "Bug Lights." These lights are not repellent, per se, but do not attract mosquitoes like other incandescent lights. Mosquitoes are relatively weak fliers, so placing a large fan on your deck can provide a low-tech solution to repel them. Citronella candles have a mild repellent effect but do not offer significantly more protection than other candles producing smoke.

Scheduled sprays used by these misters may needlessly broadcast pesticides into the environment, affecting mosquitoes and non-target insects alike. Modern mosquito control strategies emphasize an integrated approach based on a profound understanding of the target, allowing its various vulnerabilities to be exploited by the numerous tools developed for that purpose. Effective mosquito control requires continual surveys of adult mosquito densities to determine if specific triggers for control are met. These continual surveys reduce the use of adulticides to only those times when they are required.

Blacklight insect electrocution devices (such as Bug Zappers) are purchased in large quantities by homeowners due to their demonstrated ability to attract and kill thousands of insects over 24 hours. One industry representative estimates that over 1.75 million of these devices are purchased annually in the U.S.

But do they control pest insects? Bug zappers do indeed kill some mosquitoes. However, the only two controlled studies conducted to date by independent investigators at the University of Notre Dame showed that mosquitoes comprised merely 4.1% and 6.4%, respectively, of the daily catch over an entire season. Even more important was the finding in both studies that there was no significant difference in the number of mosquitoes found in yards with or without bug zappers. What is particularly disconcerting, however, is the number of non-pest insects that comprise the vast majority of the trap catch. Many of these insects are beneficial predators of other insect pests. They, in turn, constitute a significant part of the diet of many songbirds. Indeed, reduced numbers of moth and beetle prey species have contributed significantly to the decline of songbird populations in many affluent suburbs. Insect electrocution devices undoubtedly bear some responsibility for this phenomenon. Mosquitoes continue to be more attracted to humans than to the devices. One study conducted in homeowners' backyards showed that of the insects killed by these devices, only 0.13% were female mosquitoes. An estimated 71 billion to 350 billion beneficial insects may be killed annually in the United States by these electrocuting devices.

At least 10 studies published in the past 15 years have unanimously concluded that ultrasonic devices have no repellency value whatsoever. Yet, consumers flock to hardware stores in droves to purchase these contraptions. Why? The discovery that mosquitoes locate mates in mating swarms via wingbeat frequency has generated considerable research into ultrasound as a potential environmentally friendly control method. Yet, all attempts to influence mosquito behavior with ultrasound have failed despite the enormous amounts of money spent on research and development.

To be sure, the clever, high-tech, and imperceptible (by humans) use of ultrasound proved to be an exceedingly effective marketing tool for the repeller manufacturers. Homeowners were urged to buy ultrasonic repellers and similar devices to rid their homes of pests without the need to inhale "even one breath of poisonous spray." This appeal to the public's chemophobia, while highly effective in diverting attention away from proven preventive and control measures (and toward their repellent products), has undermined an unbiased review of the subject by consumers desperate for a clean, effective, nonchemical means of mosquito control. Unfortunately, no such miracle cure exists. A pioneering study testing five different ultrasonic devices against four mosquito species convincingly demonstrated that ultrasound in the 20-70 kHz range used by these devices did not affect reorienting flight by female mosquitoes either toward or away from human subjects. Additional tests have shown that sound generators capable of a wide range of frequencies were also ineffective in repelling mosquitoes. The fact is that these devices do not work - marketing claims to the contrary.

A significant amount of consumer interest has been generated by the marketing of new devices designed to attract, then either trap or kill mosquitoes. The general idea is to reduce the number of questing mosquitoes that would otherwise be afflicting the homeowner. Many products even claim to significantly reduce or even collapse local mosquito populations by decreasing the number of egg-laying females through their capture. All of these traps utilize some form of attractant that lures the host-seeking female mosquitoes to a capture or killing device. In some cases, mosquitoes are captured via an impeller fan that suctions them into a net, where they desiccate. Other trapping systems use a sticky surface to which the mosquitoes adhere when they land.

Still, others utilize an electric grid to electrocute mosquitoes drawn into contact. These are not set-and-forget devices. Each requires some level of maintenance; for example, propane tanks need to be replaced, capture nets need to be emptied, adhesive boards require replacement, and grids need to be cleaned to ensure their continued effectiveness, particularly in areas of high catch.

The process of a mosquito questing for a blood meal involves a complex, interconnected cascade of behaviors, each likely responding to distinct cues, whether visual, thermal, or olfactory. The complexity of these questing behaviors may account for the bewildering variations in trapping efficiency noted for particular species of mosquitoes at different times, seasons and places. With 174 species of mosquitoes currently recognized in the United States, this is no minor issue and will require many years before research can provide clarification.

There is some anecdotal evidence that these baited traps indeed capture more females of particular species than others, depending to some extent on the concentration of carbon dioxide emitted and the mosquito species present. There may also be seasonal and circadian variables that affect mosquito responses to specific attractants. Nonetheless, these devices will trap and kill measurable numbers of mosquitoes. Whether this will produce a noticeable reduction in the mosquito population in each case will depend on several factors, including individual tolerance levels, absolute mosquito population sizes, proximity, size, and type of breeding habitat that produces re-infestation, wind velocity and direction, and the species of mosquito present, among others.

Thus, the homeowner must still use repellents and practice source reduction methods as adjuncts to realize any measure of relief. Please exercise caution when relying too heavily on traps as your sole means of control. These traps represent an evolving technology that is a most welcome addition to our mosquito control armamentarium. Their potential is great, but shouldn't be overestimated. It's highly unlikely that these devices, even with their improvements, will ever entirely supplant organized community-wide mosquito control programs, as there is no single silver bullet that will prove to be the ultimate answer to mosquito problems.

Recently, the public has shown increased interest in the value of insectivorous species of bats in controlling mosquitoes. Although it has not been tested lately, this is not a new idea. During the 1920s, several bat towers were constructed near San Antonio, Texas, to help control malaria mosquitoes. Mosquito populations were unaffected, and the project was subsequently discontinued.

Bats in temperate areas of the world are almost exclusively insectivorous. Food items identified in their diet are primarily beetles, wasps, and moths. Mosquitoes have comprised less than 1% of the gut contents of wild-caught bats in all studies to date. Bats tend to be opportunistic feeders. They do not appear to specialize in particular types of insects but will feed on whatever food source presents itself. Large, concentrated populations of mosquitoes could provide sufficient nutrition in the absence of alternative food sources.

However, a moth provides much more nutritional value per capture than a mosquito. M.D. Tuttle, a world authority on bats, is often quoted for his anecdotal report that bats effectively controlled mosquito populations at a popular resort in New York State. While bats have likely played a significant, if not prominent, role in reducing mosquito problems in many areas, the natural abatement of mosquito populations is a highly complex process to study, involving poorly understood ecological relationships.

Tuttle attempts to underscore the bat's role by citing an experiment in which bats released into a laboratory room filled with mosquitoes caught up to 10 mosquitoes per minute. He extrapolated this value to 600 mosquitoes per hour. Thus, a colony of 500 bats could consume over 250,000 mosquitoes per hour. Impressive numbers indeed, but singularly unrealistic when based upon a study where bats were confined in a room with mosquitoes as their only food source. There is no question that bats eat mosquitoes, but using them as the sole measure of control would be folly, particularly considering the capacity of both mosquitoes and bats to transmit diseases.

It has been known for many years that bird species, such as purple martins, consume large numbers of flying insects. Proponents of their use in mosquito control are quick to cite J. L. Wade, an amateur ornithologist, who reasoned that an average of four oz. An adult purple martin, due to its rapid metabolism, would have to consume its body weight (approximately 14,000 mosquitoes) per day to survive. Wade recognized that the purple martin's diet includes many other types of insects, but this appears to have been lost on many individuals searching for a natural means of control. In fact, during daylight, purple martins often feed voraciously upon dragonflies, known predators of mosquitoes. At night, when mosquitoes are most active, purple martins tend to feed at treetop level, well above the majority of mosquito flight paths.

Ornithologist James Hill, founder of the Purple Martin Conservation Association (PMCA), writes, "The number of mosquitoes that martins eat is extremely insignificant, and they certainly don't control them. In-depth studies have shown that mosquitoes comprise no more than 0 to 3 percent of the diet of martins. They eat only flying insects, which they catch in flight. Their diet is diverse, including dragonflies, damselflies, flies, midges, mayflies, stinkbugs, leafhoppers, Japanese beetles, June bugs, butterflies, moths, grasshoppers, cicadas, bees, wasps, flying ants, and ballooning spiders. Martins are not, however, prodigious consumers of mosquitoes as is so often claimed by companies that manufacture martin housing.

An intensive 3-year diet study conducted at PMCA headquarters in Edinboro, PA, failed to find a single mosquito among the 350 diet samples collected from parent martins, bringing beakfuls of insects to their young. The samples were collected from martins at all hours of the day, throughout all seasons, and in numerous habitats, including those infested with mosquitoes. Purple Martins and freshwater mosquitoes rarely come into contact. Martins are daytime feeders and feed high in the sky; mosquitoes, on the other hand, stay low in damp places during daylight hours or only come out at night.

Since Purple Martins feed only on flying insects, they are highly vulnerable to starvation during extended periods of cool and/or rainy weather. Rather than erecting martin houses to attract insect-eating birds specifically for mosquito control, we should at least promote them for their aesthetic and educational value.

The integrated mosquito management methods currently employed by organized control districts and endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the EPA are comprehensive and specifically tailored to counter each stage of the mosquito life cycle safely. Larval control through water management and source reduction, where compatible with other land management uses, is a prudent pest management alternative. Similarly, the use of environmentally friendly, EPA-approved larvicides is also a viable option. When source elimination or larval control measures are inadequate, or in the case of imminent disease, the EPA and CDC have emphasized in a published joint statement the need for the considered application of adulticides by certified applicators trained in the special handling characteristics of these products.

A successful mosquito management program should include the following elements:

1. Larval and adult mosquito sampling
2. Source reduction
3. Biological control using native or introduced predators and parasites of mosquitoes
4. Larviciding and adulticiding, when indicated by surveillance
5. Resistance monitoring
6. Disease surveillance in mosquitoes, birds, horses and humans
7. public education

Since its inception, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated mosquito control through the enforcement of standards instituted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This legislation mandated the documentation of extensive testing for public health insecticides, by EPA guidelines, before their registration and use. These data requirements are among the most stringent in the federal government. They are identified through research conducted by established scientists in federal, state, and private institutions. This process incurs a cost of several million dollars per product for the registrant. Still, it ensures that the public health insecticides available for mosquito control do not pose health or environmental risks when used as directed.

Indeed, the five or six adulticides currently available are the selected survivors of literally hundreds of products developed for these uses over the years. The dosages at which these products are legally dispensed are at least 100-fold less than the point at which public health and environmental safety merit consideration. Literature posted on the websites of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators and National Pesticide Information Center emphasizes that proper use of mosquitocides by established mosquito control agencies does not put the general public or the environment at unreasonable risk from runoff, leaching or drift when used according to label specifications. (For the federal government's position on risks associated with mosquito control insecticides, visit http:/www.epa.gov/pesticides).

The safety profiles of public health insecticides are undergoing increasing scrutiny due to concerns about how specialized application technology and product selection protect the exposed public and the environment. Over 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies in various national and international refereed journals since 1980 have documented the safety and efficacy of these public health insecticides at label rates, as well as their application techniques.

Organized mosquito control agencies often go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate individuals who, for various reasons, prefer not to have their property sprayed with approved public health insecticides. When survey data indicate the need for adult sprays to protect public health, they are approved, planned, and conducted with special regard to the concerns of chemically sensitive persons in most jurisdictions.

Personal notification of chemically sensitive individuals regarding spray times, combined with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Global Information Systems (GIS) technology, helps reduce the likelihood of drift over unauthorized areas. These are just a few of the measures used to ensure that mosquito control serves the entire public spectrum. Contact your local district if you have a concern or a request regarding mosquito control activities.

The extremely small droplet aerosols used in adult mosquito control are designed to primarily impact adult mosquitoes that are on the wing at the time of application. Degradation of these small droplets is rapid, leaving little or no residue in the target area at ground level. These special considerations are major factors that favor the use of very low application rates for these products, generally less than 4 grams of active ingredient per acre, and are instrumental in minimizing adverse impacts.