ATTRACTANTS AND BAIT STATIONS COMPRISING DATE-DERIVED SYRUP PRODUCTS FOR ATTRACTING FLIES AND METHODS THEREIN

Abstract

The present invention discloses attractants and bait stations comprising date-derived syrup products for attracting biting flies and methods therein. The methods including the steps of: providing a bait station including: a date-derived syrup product for attracting at least one type of biting fly selected from the group consisting of: mosquitoes, sand flies, stable flies, biting midges, and stomoxys; and a substrate material for supporting the date-derived syrup product; and locating the bait station in a designated geographic area in order to attract said at least one type of biting fly. Preferably, the date-derived syrup product is derived from at least one date material selected from the group consisting of: dates, date paste, date syrup obtained from pressed dates, and commercially-available date syrup.

Claims

1. A method for attracting biting flies, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a bait station including: (i) a date-derived syrup product for attracting at least one type of biting fly selected from the group consisting of: mosquitoes, sand flies, stable flies, biting midges, and stomoxys, wherein said date-derived syrup product refers to a syrup product derived from the Genus Phoenix L. which includes the date palm, Family Arecaceae, the main species Phoenix dactylifera L., P. atlantica A. Chev., P. canariensis Chabeaud, P. reclinata Jacq., P. sylvestris Roxb., P. humilis Royle, P. hanceana Naudin, P. robelinic O'Brein, P. farinifera Roxb., P. rupicola T. Anders., P. acaulis Roxb., and P. paludosa Roxb., Canary Island date palm, Loureir's date palm, Senegal date palm, reclining date palm, pygmy date palm, wild date palm, and descendent species therein; and (ii) a substrate material for supporting said date-derived syrup product; and (b) locating said bait station in a designated geographic area in order to attract said at least one type of biting fly.

2-6. (canceled)

7. The method of claim 1, wherein said bait station further includes: (iii) a protective film for providing said at least one type of biting fly access to said date-derived syrup product.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein said protective film is adapted to be permeable to volatile components.

9. The method of claim 7, wherein said protective film is configured to be piercable by said at least one type of biting fly.

10. (canceled)

11. The method of claim 1, wherein said bait station has a field-effectivity lifetime based on an attraction index of greater than about 2 weeks.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein said date-derived syrup product is adapted to selectively attract said at least one type of biting fly while discriminately not attracting non-target insects.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein said non-target insects include at least one type of insect selected from the group consisting of: bees, wasps, and moths.

14. A method for attracting biting flies in a designated location, the method comprising the steps of: (a) setting a location based on the presence of green vegetation or foliage; and (b) applying a date-derived syrup product onto said green vegetation or foliage for attracting at least one type of biting fly selected from the group consisting of: mosquitoes, sand flies, stable flies, biting midges, and stomoxys, in the designated location, wherein said date-derived syrup product refers to a syrup product derived from the Genus Phoenix L. which includes the date palm, Family Arecaceae, the main species Phoenix dactylifera L., P. atlantica A. Chev., P. canariensis Chabeaud, P. reclinata Jacq., P. sylvestris Roxb., P. humilis Royle, P. hanceana Naudin, P. robelinic O'Brein, P. farinifera Roxb., P. rupicola T. Anders., P. acaulis Roxb., and P. paludosa Roxb., Canary Island date palm, Loureir's date palm, Senegal date palm, reclining date palm, pygmy date palm, wild date palm, and descendent species therein.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein said applying is at least one technique selected from the group consisting of: spraying, immersing, smearing, misting, pouring, and dripping.

16-17. (canceled)

18. The method of claim 14, wherein said bait station has a field-effectivity lifetime based on an attraction index of greater than about 2 weeks.

19. The method of claim 14, wherein said date-derived syrup product is adapted to selectively attract said at least one type of biting fly while discriminately not attracting non-target insects.

20. The method of claim 19, wherein said non-target insects include at least one type of insect selected from the group consisting of: bees, wasps, and moths.

21. A bait station for attracting biting flies, the bait station comprising: (a) a date-derived syrup product for attracting at least one type of biting fly selected from the group consisting of: mosquitoes, sand flies, stable flies, biting midges, and stomoxys, wherein said date-derived syrup product refers to a syrup product derived from the Genus Phoenix L. which includes the date palm, Family Arecaceae, the main species Phoenix dactylifera L., P. atlantica A. Chev., P. canariensis Chabeaud, P. reclinata Jacq., P. sylvestris Roxb., P. humilis Royle, P. hanceana Naudin, P. robelinic O'Brein, P. farinifera Roxb., P. rupicola T. Anders., P. acaulis Roxb., and P. paludosa Roxb., Canary Island date palm, Loureir's date palm, Senegal date palm, reclining date palm, pygmy date palm, wild date palm, and descendent species therein; and (b) a substrate material for supporting said date-derived syrup product.

22-26. (canceled)

27. The bait station of claim 21, the bait station further comprising: (c) a protective film for providing said at least one type of biting fly access to said date-derived syrup product.

28. The bait station of claim 27, wherein said protective film is adapted to be permeable to volatile components.

29. The bait station of claim 27, wherein said protective film is configured to be piercable by said at least one type of biting fly.

30. (canceled)

31. The bait station of claim 21, wherein said date-derived syrup product has a field-effectivity lifetime based on an attraction index of greater than about 2 weeks.

32. The bait station of claim 21, wherein said date-derived syrup product is adapted to selectively attract said at least one type of biting fly while discriminately not attracting non-target insects.

33. The bait station of claim 32, wherein said non-target insects include at least one type of insect selected from the group consisting of: bees, wasps, and moths.

34-39. (canceled)

40. The method of claim 1, wherein said date-derived syrup product is included at a concentration of at least about 10%.

41. (canceled)

42. The bait station of claim 21, wherein said date-derived syrup product is included at a concentration of at least about 10%.

43. (canceled)

Description

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0051] The present invention relates to attractants and bait stations comprising date-derived syrup products for attracting flies and methods therein. The principles and operation for providing such attractants, bait stations, and methods, according to the present invention, may be better understood with reference to the accompanying description. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention are detailed below in the following experimental studies and results.

Experimental Conditions

[0052] Field Study Site

[0053] Field studies were conducted in Neot Hakikar, in Southern Israel, the largest natural oasis along the Western shore of the Dead Sea. The area is an extreme desert with occasional natural oases consisting of marshland, and artificial oases formed by agricultural irrigation: the conditions in these sites are tropical. The Eastern part of the study oasis is mainly used for agriculture. In the Western part, there is a large, non-irrigated, date plantation. This plantation covers an area of approximately 10 hectares and is surrounded mainly by reed thickets. Chenopodiaceae shrubs, and Tamarix bushes. The vegetation between the date trees is regularly cleared. At the time of the experiments, there were no potential, attractive, sugar sources within a distance of at least 100 m from the experimental set-up.

[0054] Laboratory Experiments

[0055] Laboratory experiments were conducted in experimental cages or release-chambers in the insectary of the laboratory of Westham Ltd. The environmental conditions were: a temperature of 27 C. a relative humidity of 80%, and a photoperiod of 16:8 hours (light: dark).

[0056] Experimental Cages

[0057] Rectangular cages (1206060 cm, 0.432 m..sup.3) were made from metal frames covered with gauze, with two sleeved openings.

[0058] Release-Chambers

[0059] A room (473 m) having attractant and control bait located in two opposing corners, situated 1 meter from the abutting walls and at a height of 1 meter from the floor was used as a release chamber.

[0060] Traps Used for Evaluation of Attraction in Laboratory Studies

[0061] The attractant was placed in a 200 ml cup that was covered at its opening with yellow adhesive material (2020 cm. Tangle Foot, Rimi. Petah Tiqwa, Israel) with the adhesive side exposed, facing outward. A hole in the center of the adhesive material allowed for evaporation and effusion of the attractant into the room. Flies (male and female) were released in the room in the afternoon hours after being starved for 24 hrs. Attractive performance of the attractant was based on the number of flies stuck to the adhesive material after an elapsed amount of time in the release chamber.

[0062] Flies Used for Testing in Laboratory Studies

[0063] Mosquitoes (Culex pipiens) and sand flies (Phlebotomus papatasi) were raised under common insectary conditions (i.e., 27 C., relative humidity 80%, and photoperiod of 16:8 hours light:dark) in the insectary of Westham Ltd. The flies used for the experiments were males and females between five and ten days old. The flies had access to a 10% sucrose-in-water solution that was changed daily, but received no blood meals before the tests. Prior to the experiments, flies were starved for 12 hrs. All flies were discarded after being used in a single experiment (i.e., no repeated use of experimental flies).

[0064] Date-Derived Syrup Products Used for the Experiments

[0065] The dates, date paste, and/or date syrup used for the date-derived syrup products in the experiments were obtained from commercial suppliers; the commercial materials contained multiple varieties of dates. Initial experiments were conducted which showed no variability in attractive performance based on the source of the date-derived syrup products (i.e., dates vs. date paste vs. homemade date syrup vs. commercial date syrup).

[0066] The date-derived syrup products were mixed in water to create suitable solutions for soaking sponges used in the experiments. A 10% sucrose solution prepared from white, refined sugar was used as a control. While the date-derived syrup products inherently contain natural sugars, and thus, can serve as fly bait by providing the flies with an energy source, the experiments focused primarily on the attractive performance of the date-derived syrup products.

[0067] Traps Used for Evaluation of Attraction in Field Studies

[0068] The attraction of date-derived syrup products was determined using a specially-designed glue trap, constructed as follows. Stiff (0.2-cm thick), dark green, plastic mesh (7070 cm.), having 0.8-cm. square holes, was rolled into cylinders that were tied with plastic strips to retain their shape. End covers for the cylinders were made from circular pieces of the same mesh. A sponge soaked with either attractant or control was fixed with two wooden stakes inside the center of each mesh cylinder. The cylinders were then closed with their covers, fixed to the ground with 20-cm. long, wooden stakes, and coated with an adhesive (Tangle Foot, Rimi. Petah Tiqwa, Israel) capable of capturing flies and non-target insects that were attracted to the attractants (for description in detail, see Mller et al., 2010).

[0069] General Set-Up of Field Studies

[0070] All field studies were conducted over several consecutive days and nights. The attractant-treated traps were placed 10 m. apart along an unpaved road that crossed the above-described plantation. In total, 10 samples of each type of attractant were tested for attraction in comparison to 10 controls.

[0071] Flies and other non-target insects caught on the glue traps were recovered daily after 24 hrs. at 15:00 and counted. Used attractants/controls were removed and fresh attractants/controls were inserted in the mesh cylinders following every collection, with fresh glue being applied to the cylinders as well. The order of the traps on the road was retained, but every day the entire line of attractant-treated traps was moved three steps in the same direction to avoid local bias.

[0072] General Set-Up of Laboratory Experiments

[0073] 100 male and 100 female flies of the same species were released into a cage/release chamber in the evening (at 20:00), and allowed to settle for 30 min. The flies were then exposed to sponges soaked with attractants and controls.

[0074] Attractants were made from date-derived syrup products mixed with water in proportions of 100 g of products to 900 ml of water. Solution of 10% sucrose (from white, refined sugar) was used as the control. Food dyes were added as feeding markers; 1% W/V red dye and 1% W/V blue dye were added to experimental and control solutions, respectively. For the duration of the experiments, the experimental cages were kept inside the insectary.

[0075] After exposing the flies to attractant for a certain amount of time, the flies were recovered, and their abdomens were observed under a dissection microscope for the presence of imbibed, colored solutions. Attractant/control solutions were changed daily. For each fly species, there were ten repetitions per experiment.

[0076] Statistical Analysis

[0077] Statistical analysis was carried out using the GraphPad Prism 5.0 statistical package. Student's t-tests were used to compare the number of flies caught by each fruit-species attractant compared to the sucrose control. Significance was taken at p<0.05. Date-derived syrup products were ranked by being assigned an attraction index which was calculated by taking the average catch with the fruit-based attractant (AF) divided by the average catch with the sucrose solution-soaked sponge control (AC): AF/AC=Attraction Index or AI.

Experimental Results

Experiment I: Degree of Attraction of Flies on Different, Freshly-Prepared, Attractants in Experimental Cages

[0078] Cohorts of 100 female and 100 male Culex pipiens were exposed in experimental cages to an attractant made from date syrup (either commercial products or syrup derived from dates or date paste), guava-based juice attractant (see Mller et al., 2010b), and 10% sucrose solution. Results after an exposure time of 30 minutes are presented in Table 1.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Degree of attraction of Culex pipiens after an exposure time of 30 minutes on different, fresh attractants in experimental cages Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based 35 29 41 62 51 48 73 39 56 45 479 47.90 2.83 Guava-based 21 30 24 35 19 40 28 14 34 42 287 28.70 1.7 Sucrose 10% 12 19 11 8 23 15 9 28 30 14 169 16.90 //// Males Date-based 37 35 55 69 50 57 75 36 63 51 528 52.80 2.8 Guava-based 25 30 29 42 21 45 24 20 35 48 319 31.90 1.67 Sucrose 10% 15 18 14 13 20 24 16 25 27 19 191 19.10 //// * AI is based on comparison to 10% sucrose solution.

[0079] Results for Culex pipiens in experimental cages after an exposure time of 10 hours are presented in Table 2.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Degree of attraction of Culex pipiens after an exposure time of 10 hours on different, fresh attractants in experimental cages. Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based 98 95 91 97 89 97 95 100 93 95 950 95.00 1.23 Guava-based 85 82 93 85 90 92 97 89 91 97 901 90.10 1.17 Sucrose 10% 67 90 76 81 77 86 85 73 64 72 771 77.10 //// Males Date-based 96 93 98 100 95 92 99 97 89 90 949 94.90 1.21 Guava-based 88 85 79 81 85 78 92 95 87 91 861 86.10 1.09 Sucrose 10% 65 73 91 85 72 90 88 75 75 70 784 78.40 //// * AI is based on comparison to 10% sucrose solution

[0080] Results for Ph. papatasi in experimental cages after an exposure time of 30 minutes are presented in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Degree of attraction of Ph. papatasi after an exposure time of 30 minutes on different, fresh attractants in experimental cages. Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based 19 23 34 17 32 25 31 40 27 45 293 29.30 3.61 Guava-based 10 14 19 20 16 9 26 18 30 17 179 17.90 2.21 Sucrose 10% 5 9 12 3 6 14 11 4 7 10 81 10.30 //// Males Date-based 14 26 31 18 40 29 32 35 38 49 312 31.20 3.28 Guava-based 8 17 20 15 19 12 25 23 29 21 189 18.90 1.99 Sucrose 10% 7 10 15 5 9 11 13 3 15 7 95 12.40 //// * AI is based on comparison to 10% sucrose solution

[0081] Results for Ph. paparasi in experimental cages after an exposure time of 10 hours are presented in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Degree of attraction of Ph. papatasi after an exposure time of 10 hours on different, fresh attractants in experimental cages. Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based 78 71 69 63 72 91 84 88 95 70 781 78.10 1.11 Guava-based 80 62 65 71 81 59 75 67 71 91 722 72.20 1.03 Sucrose 10% 57 85 72 60 64 74 81 55 80 73 701 70.10 //// Males Date-based 74 78 62 70 80 85 96 92 87 81 805 80.50 1.18 Guava-based 68 81 83 65 72 75 84 71 90 83 772 77.20 1.13 Sucrose 10% 59 63 75 66 57 80 72 60 71 78 681 68.10 //// * AI is based on comparison to 10% sucrose solution

[0082] Summary of results: In experimental cages, both female and male mosquitoes and sand flies exhibited significantly higher attraction on date-based attractant than on guava-based attractant after a time exposure of 30 min. Compared to the control (sucrose) attraction for both attractant formulations was significantly higher. After 10 hrs., the attraction rate on date-based attractant was still consistently higher than on guava-based attractant, although the results were not statistically significant. The date-based attractant is characterized by significantly higher attraction rates than guava-based attractant within short time intervals of exposure based on AI.

Experiment II: Degree Attraction of Flies to Different, Freshly Prepared and Aged Attractants in Release Chambers

[0083] Cohorts of 100 female and 100 male flies were exposed in release chambers to a date-derived syrup product, guava-based juice attractant, and 10% sucrose solution. Results after an exposure time of 30 minutes to different, freshly-prepared attractants are presented in Table 5.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Degree of attraction of Culex pipiens after an exposure time of 30 minutes on different, freshly-prepared attractants in release chambers. Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based 14 27 11 19 13 25 22 15 19 32 197 19.70 13.13 Guava-based 5 12 5 6 10 5 8 2 9 4 66 6.60 4.4 Sucrose 10% 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 7 15 1.50 //// Males Date-based 17 25 16 26 15 19 16 17 27 38 216 21.60 12.71 Guava-based 6 10 3 9 8 5 10 6 11 15 83 8.30 4.88 Sucrose 10% 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 6 17 1.70 //// * AI is based on comparison to 10% sucrose solution

[0084] Results for Culex pipiens in release chambers after an exposure time of 10 hours to different, freshly-prepared attractants are presented in Table 6.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Degree of attraction of Culex pipiens after an exposure time of 10 hours on different, freshly-prepared attractants in release chambers. Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based 98 95 91 97 89 97 95 100 93 95 950 95.00 2.83 Guava-based 85 82 93 85 90 92 97 89 91 97 901 90.10 1.7 Sucrose 10% 67 90 76 81 77 86 85 73 64 72 771 77.10 //// Males Date-based 96 93 98 ## 95 92 99 97 89 90 949 94.90 2.8 Guava-based 88 85 79 81 85 78 92 95 87 91 861 86.10 1.67 Sucrose 10% 65 73 91 85 72 90 88 75 75 70 784 78.40 //// * AI is based on comparison to 10% sucrose solution

[0085] Results for female Culex pipiens in release chambers after an exposure time of 30 minutes to different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants are presented in Table 7.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Degree of attraction of female Culex piptens after an exposure time of 30 minutes on different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants in release chambers. Attractants/ Avg. Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total % Index * Females Date-based: 10 8 15 15 17 13 29 34 21 11 173 17.30 14.41 fresh Date-based: 5 11 17 8 24 19 27 13 20 16 160 16.00 13.33 2 wks Date-based: 12 9 20 26 18 11 14 19 25 32 186 18.60 15.5 4 wks Date-based: 33 14 5 3 14 18 22 13 21 12 155 15.50 12.92 10 wks Date-based: 20 17 12 6 9 24 37 31 15 29 200 20.00 16.67 16 wks Guava-based: 11 4 9 2 7 8 17 5 3 6 72 7.20 6 fresh Guava-based: 5 15 19 21 8 4 3 6 3 5 89 8.90 7.42 2 wks Guava-based: 5 4 3 10 7 9 8 4 13 2 65 6.50 5.42 4 wks Guava-based: 2 0 3 1 0 2 5 1 3 1 18 1.80 1.5 10 wks Guava-based: 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 8 0.80 0.67 16 wks Sucrose 10%: 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 10 1.00 0.83 fresh Sucrose 10%: 3 1 3 2 4 1 2 4 1 5 26 2.60 3 2 wks Sucrose 10%: 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 0 11 1.10 0.92 4 wks Sucrose 10%: 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 8 0.80 0.67 10 wks Sucrose 10%: 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 4 13 1.30 1.08 16 wks Plain water 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 12 1.20 //// * AI is based on comparison to plain water

[0086] Summary of Results: In release chambers, both female and male mosquitoes and sand flies exhibited significantly higher attraction on date-based attractants than on guava-based attractants after a time exposure of 30 min. for both freshly-prepared and aged attractants. Compared to the control (sucrose) attraction on both attractant formulations was significantly higher. After 10 hrs., the attraction rate on date-based was still consistently higher than on guava-based attractant, although the results were not statistically significant. The date-based attractant is characterized by a significantly higher attraction rates than guava-based attractant within short time intervals of exposure based on AI.

[0087] Field Studies: Degree of Attraction of Flies a Different, Freshly-Prepared and Aged Attractants in a Study Oasis

[0088] Field studies were conducted in the study oasis described above. Results for Anopheles sergentii (female and male mosquitoes pooled) in the study oasis after an overnight exposure to different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants are presented in Table 8.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Degree of attraction of Anopheles sergentii (female and male mosquitoes pooled) after an overnight exposure on different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants in a study oasis. Attractants/ Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Index* Intact Ripe Fruits Guava 29 35 47 28 56 41 57 69 26 17 405 6.86 Dates 2 7 1 12 5 11 17 6 2 8 71 1.2 Blended Ripe Fruits Guava: fresh 45 57 36 39 55 70 27 85 48 76 538 9.12 Dates: fresh 10 3 1 19 5 4 2 13 5 16 78 1.32 Fruit Attractants Guava: fresh 87 104 66 73 128 111 76 190 142 90 1067 18.01 Dates: fresh 210 125 237 345 192 286 99 439 442 251 2626 44.51 Guava: 10-wk 10 6 11 17 8 5 19 10 15 7 108 1.83 field exp. Dates: 10-wk 255 149 93 317 180 125 269 336 164 350 2238 37.93 field exp. Controls Sucrose 10% 10 4 2 2 0 9 6 15 4 11 63 0.83 fresh Plain water 6 1 2 8 4 2 13 9 11 3 59 //// *AI is based on comparison to plain water

[0089] Results for Aedes caspius (female and male mosquitoes pooled) in the study oasis after an overnight exposure to different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants we presented in Table 9.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Degree of attraction of Aedes caspius (female and male mosquitoes pooled) after an overnight exposure on different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants in a study oasis. Attractants/ Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Index* Intact Ripe Fruits Guava 9 14 13 20 11 27 36 28 31 15 204 5.37 Dates 3 7 1 1 6 2 5 3 8 1 37 0.94 Blended Ripe Fruits Guava: fresh 15 36 67 51 26 40 31 75 21 53 415 10.92 Dates: fresh 6 2 1 11 3 7 3 1 12 7 53 1.4 Fruit Attractants Guava: fresh 17 25 52 40 30 71 59 44 97 86 521 13.71 Dates: fresh 115 240 95 158 192 64 95 150 175 203 1487 39.14 Guava: 10-wk 20 11 7 13 5 21 4 15 6 10 112 2.95 field exp. Dates: 10-wk 142 112 74 260 128 87 52 161 248 105 1369 36.03 field exp. Controls Sucrose 3 10 2 1 5 2 4 5 6 3 41 1.08 10% fresh Plain water 5 4 1 0 7 5 2 5 8 1 38 //// *AI is based on comparison to plain water

[0090] Results for Ph. papatasi (female and male sand flies pooled) in the study oasis after an overnight exposure to different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants are presented in Table 10.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Degree of attraction of Ph. papatasi (female and male sand flies pooled) after an overnight exposure on different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants in a study oasis. Attractants/ Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Index * Intact Ripe Fruits Guava 35 45 17 9 21 10 13 24 19 23 216 10.8 Dates 8 0 5 3 2 1 0 0 5 2 26 1.3 Blended Ripe Fruits Guava: fresh 21 15 10 8 25 18 32 17 9 13 168 8.4 Dates: fresh 5 3 7 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 23 1.15 Fruit Attractants Guava: fresh 82 33 57 31 70 63 42 69 23 88 558 27.9 Dates: fresh 75 120 157 93 105 76 33 135 187 145 1126 56.3 Guava: 10-wk 3 5 10 14 2 1 7 3 0 5 50 2.5 field exp. Dates: 10-wk 150 96 45 184 135 70 167 68 81 57 1053 52.65 field exp. Controls Sucrose 7 3 2 4 1 5 1 0 3 1 27 1.35 10% fresh Plain water 5 1 2 0 0 3 1 2 4 2 20 //// * AI is based on comparison to plain water

[0091] Non-target insects: Results for Lepidoptera (female and male moths pooled) in the study oasis after an overnight exposure to different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants are presented in Table 11.

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Degree of attraction of Lepidoptera (female and male moths pooled) after an overnight exposure on different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants in a study oasis. Attractants/ Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Index * Intact Ripe Fruits Guava 25 14 31 9 17 12 39 45 56 21 269 22.42 Dates 2 5 1 0 0 2 4 1 3 1 19 1.58 Blended Ripe Fruits Guava: fresh 19 37 35 49 64 32 77 85 61 50 509 42.42 Dates: fresh 7 2 0 3 1 3 0 0 5 7 28 2.33 Fruit Attractants Guava: fresh 227 245 64 90 73 102 185 206 145 110 1447 120.58 Dates: fresh 5 0 6 9 4 10 3 2 7 1 47 3.92 Guava: 10-wk 5 34 51 69 18 73 25 11 30 8 324 27 field exp. Dates: 10-wk 2 7 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 2 19 1.58 field exp. Controls Sucrose 2 0 0 3 1 0 5 2 1 1 15 1.25 10% fresh Empty plate 3 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 4 1 14 1.17 Plain water 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 12 //// * AI is based on comparison to plain water

[0092] Non-target insects: Results for Hymenoptera (female and male wasps/bees pooled) in the study oasis after daytime exposure to different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants are presented in Table 12.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Degree of attraction of Hymenoptera (female and male wasps/bees pooled) after daytime exposure on different, freshly-prepared and aged attractants in a study oasis. Attractants/ Attraction Repetitions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Index * Intact Ripe Fruits Guava 19 27 15 30 52 18 5 21 40 38 265 53 Dates 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 2 10 2 Blended Ripe Fruits Guava: fresh 44 25 10 48 75 29 36 64 50 92 473 94.6 Dates: fresh 4 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 11 2.2 Fruit Attractants Guava: fresh 51 93 113 73 37 46 55 105 71 42 686 137.2 Dates: fresh 3 0 5 2 0 0 3 19 5 1 38 7.6 Guava: 10-wk 12 8 4 8 5 19 7 3 14 10 90 18 field exp. Dates: 10-wk 0 0 3 1 5 1 0 0 0 4 14 2.8 field exp. Controls Sucrose 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 7 1.4 10% fresh Empty plate 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 8 1.6 Plain water 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 //// * AI is based on comparison to plain water

[0093] Summary of results: In field studies in the study oasis, both mosquitoes and sand flies exhibited significantly higher attraction on fruit-based guava attractants (i.e., intact ripe fruit and blended ripe fruit) than on fruit-based date attractants after an overnight exposure, while date-based syrup attractants (as compared to guava-based juice attractants) yielded a significantly higher AI for freshly-prepared and aged attractants. With regard to attraction discrimination of non-target insects (e.g., moths, wasps, and bees), date-based attractants performed significantly better as compared to guava-based attractants by yielding substantially lower AIs for non-target insects in the field-study data.

[0094] The results from the experimental and field studies described above indicate, inter alia, attractants prepared from date-derived syrup products are significantly better for attracting flies, while selectively discriminating non-target insects by exhibiting poor attraction to such unintended targets.

[0095] Bait Stations Comprising Date-Derived Syrup Products

[0096] Bait stations can be made from a substrate material that is used to support the date-derived syrup products and optionally, a protective, semi-permeable, piercable film, which encloses the date-derived syrup products. Suitable substrate materials and protective films to assist in preventing erosion, sagging, and cold flow of the date-derived syrup products as well as lowering surface tack.

[0097] Substrate materials can be mechanically-roughened materials (e.g., reinforced cardboard and plastic) as well as materials constructed to have high surface area (e.g., woven functional fabrics and meshes, open-pore foams, fibrous mats, corrugated materials, and honeycomb fabricated materials).

[0098] Furthermore, natural substrates can be found in the environments of the area in which one wants to utilize the attractants. For example, green vegetation and similar foliage that are non-flowering, or are utilized when they are not in their flowering phase (in order not to attract bees), are excellent substrates. Typically, such natural substrates have roughened or textured surfaces that are ideal for supporting such date-derived syrup products. In addition, such natural substrates eliminate any concern of generating any environmental waste by-product in the environment.

[0099] Protective films can be suitable polymeric materials (e.g., thermoplastics, thermosetting polymers, carbon black-filled butyl rubber, acrylic polymer, plasticized PVC, polyurethanes, neoprene, natural rubber, and butadiene rubber). Such materials may contain elastomers (e.g., polydimethyl siloxanes (PDMS), silicone rubbers, silicone elastomers, silicone gels, ethylene-vinyl acetate, ethylene-acrylic ester copolymers and terpolymers, ethylene-propylene rubber, plastomers such as ethylene-bexene and ethylene-octee copolymers, thermoplasic vulcanized rubber (TPV); hydrogenated block styrene-ethylene butylenes (SEBS); and block styrene isoprene (SIBS).

[0100] Such materials may further contain plasticizers (e.g., aliphatic polyesters) and light stabilizers (e.g., UV stabilizers), as well as other additives such as carbon black, pigments and dyes, fillers, and bactericides, fungicides, and other microbial-activity suppressants.

[0101] Such protective films assist in physically supporting the date-derived syrup products in to order to prevent sagging and cold flow, while allowing for effusion of the date-derived attractants.

[0102] While the present invention has been described with respect to a limited number of embodiments, it will be appreciated that many variations, modifications, and other applications of the present invention may be made.

LITERATURE

[0103] Dye, C. M., Guy, W., Elkins, D. B., Wilkes, & T. J. Killick-Kendrick, R., 1987. The life expectancy of phlebotomine sand flies: first field estimates from southern France. Med. Vet. Entomol. 1: 417-425. [0104] Foster. W. A., 1995. Mosquito sugar feeding and reproductive energetics. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40: 443-474. [0105] Gibb. P. A., Anderson, J. C. & Dye. C., 1988. Are nulliparous flies light shy? Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 82: 342-343. [0106] Killick-Kendrick, R., 1999. The biology and control of phlebotomine sand flies. Clinics in Dermatology, 17: 279-289. [0107] MacVicker. J. A. K., Moore, J. S., Molyneux. D. H., & Maroli, M., 1990. Honeydew sugars in wild caught Italian phlebotomine sandflies (Diptera: Psychodidae) as detected by high performance liquid chromatography. Bull. Entomol. Res. 80: 339-344. [0108] Mller. G. C. & Schlein, Y., 2004. Nectar and honeydew feeding of Phlebotomus papatasi in a focus of Leishmania major in Neot Hakikar oasis. J. Vector Ecol. 29: 154-158. [0109] Mller, G. C. & Schlein, Y., 2006. Sugar questing mosquitoes in arid areas gather on scarce blossoms that can be used for control. Int. J. Parasitol. 36: 1077-1080. [0110] Mller, G. C., Junnila, A., & Schlein, Y., 2010. Effective control of adult Culex pipiens by spraying an attractive toxic sugar bait solution in the vegetation near larval developmental sites. J. Med. Entomol. 47: 63-66. [0111] Mller, G. C., Beier, J. C., Traore, S. F., Toure, M. B., Traore, M. M., Bah, S., Doumbia, S., & Schlein, Y., 2010a. Field experiments of Anopheles gambiae attraction to local fruits/seedpods and flowering plants in Mali to optimize strategies for malaria vector control in Africa using attractive toxic sugar bait methods. Malar. J., 9:262. [0112] Mller. G. C., Beier. J. C., Traore, S. F., Toure, M. B., Traore, M. M., Bah. S., Doumbia. S., & Schlein, Y., 2010b. Successful field trial of attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) plant-spraying methods against malaria vectors in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali, West Africa. Malar. J., 9:210. [0113] Schlecin, Y. & Muiller. G. C., 1995. Assessment of plant tissue feeding by sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) and mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 32: 882-88. [0114] Schlein. Y. & Miller. G. C., 2008. An approach to mosquito control: Using the dominant attraction of flowering Tamarix jordanis trees against Culex pipiens. J. Med. Entomol. 45: 384-390. [0115] Schlein, Y & Mller, G. C., 2010. Experimental control of Phlebotomus papatasi by spraying attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) on vegetation. Trans. Trop. Med. and Hyg. Accepted. [0116] Wallbanks, K. R., Moore, J. S., Bennet. L. R., Soren, R., Molyneux, D. H., Carlin. J. M., & Perez, J. E., 1991. Aphid derived sugars in the neotropical sandfly Lutzomyia peruensis. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 42: 60-62.