Hindawi Publishing Corporation

International Journal of Zoology

Volume 2013, Article ID 649089, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/649089

Research Article
Cockroach Infestation and Factors Affecting the Estimation of
Cockroach Population in Urban Communities

Gholam Hossein Shahraki, Saadat Parhizkar, and Alireza Raygan Shirazi Nejad
Faculty of Health Science, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran

Correspondence should be addressed to Gholam Hossein Shahraki; vahabsh@yahoo.com

Received 5 February 2013; Revised 21 April 2013; Accepted 22 April 2013

Academic Editor: Randy J. Nelson

Copyright © 2013 Gholam Hossein Shahraki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

Cockroach is one of the most important pests in urban communities. This study was conducted to determine the situation of
cockroach infestation and effective factors on cockroach trap count in urban communities of Yasuj City in southwestern Iran. In
this study cockroach population in 573 sampling units (residential units, official places, and hospitals) was monitored using sticky
traps over a five-week trapping period. Occupants of 348 residential units were also questioned (by means of questionnaire) for
cockroach infestation in their respective residence. The study shows almost 39% of sampling units were infested by cockroach. Five
species from two families had been identified: Blattidae (comprising Blatta orientalis, B. lateralis, and Periplaneta americana) and
Blattellidae (comprising Blattella germanica and Supella longipalpa). German cockroach, B. germanica, with widespread distribution
(80% of infested sampling units) showed the highest frequency (96.7%) of trap counts. The expression of the distribution of German
cockroach populations and some factors could affect trapping, and population monitoring in an urban community was surveyed.
Additionally, affecting some exclusion factors on cockroach infestation was pointed. Rates and source of cockroach infestation were
discussed from the viewpoints of the residents.

1. Introduction
Cockroaches have been in existence for about 360 million
years [1], and they are one of the important groups of insect
pests in urban environments. Cockroaches not only spoil
food but also transfer pathogens and cause allergic reactions
and psychological distress [2]. As a potential mechanical
vector of human diseases, many pathogenic organisms have
been associated with cockroaches. These include poliomyeli-
tis viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and helminthes [3–
6]. Pai et al. [7] reported cockroaches as potential vectors
of nosocomial infections. Moreover, bacteria with antibiotic
resistance have been isolated from household cockroaches
[8, 9]. The most common important species is associated to
surveyed locations. In the southeastern United States, smoky-
brown cockroach [10], in New Zealand, German cockroach
[11], and in Southeast Asia, American cockroach [12–16] were
found to be the most dominant species, respectively. While
the German cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L.), are not
present in households in Southeast Asia, they are prevalent
insect pests in hotels and food outlets [17, 18]. There are over
3,500 species of cockroaches worldwide. Of these only several
species are commonly associated with humans. Three domi-
ciliary species of importance are the German cockroach, the
American cockroach (Periplaneta americana), and the Orien-
tal cockroach (Blatta orientalis) [19]. German cockroach has
a worldwide distribution, although it originated in north or
tropical Africa despite the misleading common name [20].
However, German cockroach has created substantial pest
problems in many developing countries [21–24]. This species
reported a common indoor pest in low-income housing [2].
According to the report by Hanafi-Bojd and Sadaghiani
[25], there are 24 species of cockroaches from 4 families:
Polyphagidae (12 species), Blattidae (5 species), Blattellidae (5
species), and Ectobiidae (2 species), that have been identified
throughout the cities of Iran so far. Three species, the Ger-
man cockroach, the American cockroach, and the Oriental
cockroach, are the most common species that have caused
health problems in urban communities (e.g., residential
buildings, hotels, hospitals, restaurants, and shopping) of
2 International Journal of Zoology
Table 1: Surveyed locations and results of trap monitoring throughout the programme.
Number of Sampling Size of units
Type of location
locations units (limitation)
Dormitories from
11 dormitories 386 12–18 m2 × 2.5 m
four universities∗
Hospital 2 hospitals 121 12–18 m2 × 3 m
Housing complex 7 buildings 27 70 m2 × 2.5 m
Official place 1 building 22 12–14 m2 × 3 m
Hotel 1 building 17 12–18 m2 × 2.5 m
∗
YUMS, YU, AU, and TU.
Iran. Additionally, Polyphaga indica, P. aegyptiaca, Periplan-
eta australasiae, and Blatta lateralis are the other important
cockroaches in Iran.
Yasuj, which is situated in southwestern Iran and the
capital of Kohgiluyeh va Boyer Ahmad, was chosen for this
study. The province covers an area of 15,563 square kilometers
and in 2006 had a population of 634,000 [26]. The weather
varies with seasons: cold and snowy in the winter, cold or
moderate and rainy in the spring and fall, and hot (not more
than 35∘ C) and dry in the summer [27]. Mean annual tem-
perature, rainfall, and humidity are 15∘ C, 866 mm, and 45%
RH, respectively. Although ancient structures of housings are
predominant throughout the city, new structures of buildings
have sprung up in the last few years [27].
2. Materials and Methods
After a preliminary survey on private and public places in
the southwestern of Iran, Yasuj City, 573 sampling units were
selected for the study (using sticky trap), and a sampling unit
comprised an “apartment unit” for residential building and a
“room” for hospital, dormitory, hotel, and government office
(Table 1). At the inspection stage, monitoring was performed
weekly using sticky traps for sampling units. Moreover 97
private houses had been surveyed by questionnaire. The
sticky traps were manufactured by Ridsect (produced by Sara
Lee Sch. Bhd. Malaysia) in baited tent form, and the size
of the sticky surface of the trap was 16 × 9 cm2 . Depending
on the surveyed locations, traps were placed in cabinets,
under the sink, beside the refrigerator, beside the stove, in
closets, and on shelves, with one side of the trap resting
against a vertical surface. Average one trap per eight square
meters was installed in sampling units. Totally the number of
cockroaches per trap for each sampling unit was estimated.
Infestation rate is defined as cockroach trap count per trap
during seven-day trapping period. Numbers of cockroaches
trapped were recorded weekly after each 7-day trapping
period. The trapping process continued for a 5-week period.
Number of infested
Infested Number of identified
units with
sampling units cockroaches (%)
B. germanica
5758 B. germanica (97.59%)
91 B. lateralis (1.54%)
141 (37%) 116 46 P. americana (0.78%)
4 S. longipalpa (0.07%)
1 B. orientalis (0.02%)
1125 B. germanica (93.28%)
71 (59%) 60 62 B. lateralis (5.14%)
19 P. americana (1.58%)
131 B. germanica (94.93%)
7 (26%) 5 6 P. americana (4.35%)
1 Supella longipalpa (0.72%)
4 (18%) 0 5 B. lateralis (100%)
2 (12%) 0 2 B. lateralis (100%)
A set of questionnaires were distributed for occupants
of the 348 residential units (from 10 dormitories, 97 private
houses, and 7 house building complexes) to obtain infor-
mation about cockroach infestation in their houses (e.g.,
size of cockroach, time, and entrance-source of cockroach
infestation). Some details of the structural design (conjugated
to survival of cockroach) for 69 units of hospital were
collected by the other set of questionnaire.
Data was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis Test and Spearman
correlation coefficient besides descriptive statistics using the
SPSS software.
3. Results and Discussion
From a total of 573 sampling units inspected using trapping
(i.e., apartments, units, or housings), 39.3% (225 units) were
infested with cockroaches. The results show that 37, 59, 26, 18,
and 12% of the sampling units in the surveyed dormitories,
hospitals, housing building complexes, official places, and
hotel, respectively, were infested with cockroaches (Table 1).
Therefore, the hospitals showed the highest frequency of
infested units via trap monitoring. Plumbing facilities (i.e.,
wash basin), heating source, and openings in the roof for
84, 43.5, and 21% of units (𝑁 = 69 units) at the hospi-
tals, respectively, obtained from the questionnaire, could be
detected as effective factors for survival of cockroach [28]
which explained the high rate of infestation for the hospitals.
A survey on 97 private houses throughout the city by means
of questionnaires showed that 80% of residences complained
of cockroach infestation. Therefore, survey by cockroach trap
monitoring showed that all surveyed locations (22 areas) in
this city were infested with cockroaches, although infestation
rates varied throughout the urban communities.
From a total of 7251 cockroaches collected from 22
different locations of the city, five species of cockroaches
had been identified. The German cockroach was the most
abundant comprising 96.73% of all cockroaches trapped.
The other identified species in order of abundance were the
International Journal of Zoology 3

Turkestan cockroach (Blatta lateralis) (2.21%), the American Table 2: Mean of cockroach trap counts for four study locations.
cockroach (0.98%), the Brown-banded cockroach (Supella
longipalpa) (0.07%), and the Oriental cockroach (0.01%). The Number of Frequency Mean of
Study Variance
surveyed of infested infestation rate
recognized species are from two families: Blattidae (compris- locations ∗ /mean ratio
units units (per trap/unit)
ing B. orientalis, B. lateralis, and P. americana) and Blattel-
Girls’
lidae (comprising B. germanica and S. longipalpa). Hanafi- 53 72% 15.90 18.75
dormitory
Bojd and Sadaghiani [25] previously reported four families
Boys’
from indoor and outdoor survey (Polyphagidae, Blattidae, 72 72% 16.96 34.87
dormitory
Blattellidae, and Ectobiidae). However three species, the
German, American, and Oriental cockroaches were reported Residential
25 60% 7.73 7.39
building
as the most common species in Iran [25]. These species were
detected in this study, although the Turkestan cockroach Hospital 101 61% 4.02 1.36
∗
instead of the Oriental cockroach showed the third common For infested units.
species (for frequency of distribution and dispersion). Per-
centage frequency of the German cockroach in the five types Table 3: Mean and variance of cockroach tap counts for surveyed
of study locations (Table 1) shows the German cockroach floors of four surveyed buildings (72 units).
was the most abundant in the dormitories (98%), housing Floor Mean N Std. deviation Variance
(95%), and hospital (93%), respectively, compared to the
G 3.4450 4 1.07438 1.154
other species. However, it was not seen in official places and
1 11.8731 25 13.11264 171.941
hotels. Moreover, more than 80% of infested units (181 from
225 units; Table 1) were infested by the German cockroach 2 11.4316 29 15.25659 232.763
(i.e., the highest frequency of dispersion among infested 3 10.1000 10 9.08811 82.594
units). Therefore, surveyed dormitories showed the most 4 51.5000 4 46.56616 2168.407
diverse composition with all five species present and the most Total 13.1823 72 18.52862 343.310
abundant for the German cockroach compared to the other
study locations. Official places and hotels with the lowest
infested units (18 and 12%, resp.) revealed the least varied floors (the highest floor with the biggest variance; Table 3),
for cockroach species and least abundant for the German and this correlation was significant (𝑟𝑠 = 7, 𝑃(1-tailed) =
cockroaches. However, more official buildings and hotel units 0.045). Paige [32] reported strong population fluctuation of
need to be surveyed to substantiate the findings. German cockroach was negatively correlated with barometric
Sizeable German cockroach trap count was detected pressure. It can be deduced that the higher the floors of a
for four study locations (Table 2). The expression of the building, the greater the cockroach population fluctuations.
distribution of German cockroach populations in space at These observations will be useful when conducting survey of
four locations based on the formula of the variance to mean cockroach infestations in buildings with more than five floors
ratio ([𝜎2 /𝜉 < 1] for uniform [𝜎2 /𝜉 = 1] for random, and high or in skyline structures.
[𝜎2 /𝜉 > 1] for clumped) [29] was clumped, although for the Eighty one percent of residents for three dormitories
hospitals this ratio was near to random (Table 2). This index is (comprising 116 units) said that their units were infested
important because it is consistent from year to year for each by cockroaches, although 53% of those units were detected
species [29]. The German cockroach is known as domestic as infested via cockroach trap monitoring. Actually resi-
cockroach and lives in groups (semisocial insect), and they dents reported 28% higher infestations of units than that
are rarely dispersed throughout a building [30, 31]. Thus determined from trap monitoring. This is probably due
clumped distribution for these species is expected. Cockroach to the low tolerance of a considerable number of respon-
infestation rates for hospital and residential building show dents towards cockroach, prompting to a questionably high
lower mean than girls’ and boys’ dormitories, although there incidence of infestation. Moreover, sensitivity of trapping
was no significant difference (𝑃 > 0.05) between mean method for clean level of infestation could be influenced by
of cockroach infestation rates for four surveyed locations frequency of infestation, and those units with less than one
(Kruskal-Wallis Test; chi-square = 1.352, d.f = 3, and 𝑃 = cockroach per trap (nominated as clean level unit) reported
0.509). as infested instead. Brenner et al. [33] reported different
Some factors affecting the estimating of cockroach pop- rates of cockroach prevalence for residential apartments
ulation in an urban community were surveyed. Survey on from questionnaire and trapping. Agrawal and Tilak [34]
infestation rates (German cockroach infestation) for the units reported more cockroach counts based on visual counts
(72 units at four locations) which were located on different method compared to sticky trap method. However, the traps
floors showed the number of floors (i.e., distance of apart- (baited with mouse pellets) were reported as a best way to
ment from ground) did not significantly affect cockroach trap determine cockroach infestation [35–37]. Only 4% of the
counts (𝑟𝑠 = 0.118, 𝑃 = 0.324). Moreover, there was no signif- occupants at the infested units did not notice any infestation.
icant difference in cockroach infestation rates between floors This could be attributed to these occupants being away
of these buildings (Kruskal-Wallis Test; chi-square = 7.636, d.f from home. Moreover, survey on 348 study units of private
= 4, and 𝑃 = 0.106) (Table 3). Additionally the variance of houses, dormitories, and housing complex via questionnaires
the population was positively correlated with elevation of the showed that residents for 72% of surveyed residential units
4 International Journal of Zoology
Table 4: Frequency of resident’s responses to four items of questionnaire.
Frequency of
Type of location Sampling units∗ infestation of their
old ancient
Dormitories 228 0 (153/228) 67%
Private houses 97 55 (57%)
Housing
23 0 (20/23) 87%
complex
Total 348 55 (16%)
∗
Unit or houses.
admitted to cockroach infestation in their houses (Table 4).
Comparison of this rate and total infestation report via
trapping (39%) shows 33% reduction for clean level units (in
agreement with previous report: 28% for the dormitories).
Therefore, the determination of cockroach infested units is
highly associated to the type of cockroach monitoring. Survey
on 19 house kitchens of the dormitories via two approaches
(visual and trap counts) showed that cockroach had been seen
immediately once upon entry for 20% of infested kitchens.
From 80% remaining kitchens, the cockroach had been seen
visually in 8% of these places when the trash container
was moved. Survey via sticky trap resulted in 21% high
levels of infestation (≥26 cockroach per trap per kitchen)
for the kitchens. This is close to the rate of visual survey
(20%) even after moving the trash container (28%) in the
kitchens. However, the greatest difference between methods
is observed for the determination of very low levels of
infestation. It shows a limitation for exact determination of
infested sampling units.
The other factor pointed as an effective factor on infes-
tation is age of building. Only 16% of surveyed places were
considered old (≥10 years old). All of these places were in the
categories of private houses (Table 4). Surveys on the houses
showed 85% of old houses versus 73% of new houses (46
versus 30 houses) were infested by cockroaches. Therefore,
age of building could have an impact on infestation, although
the correlation between the two factors was not significant
based on 95% CI (𝑟𝑠 = 0.149, 𝑃 = 0.150). Survey also showed
59% of infested units were infested more than six months
prior to the survey (Table 2), suggesting infestation did not
occur spontaneously and transient in nature.
The other factors that could affect trapping (and/or pop-
ulation monitoring) are attacks by other pests and damage
to traps. Out of the 2113 inspection of cockroach traps in
the surveyed dormitories throughout the programme, 7.8% of
traps were found damaged. The most frequent cause of these
damages (4.8%) was that the traps had been thrown out by
residents. Although a briefing for occupants to accept and
contribute to this programme led to reduction in trap dispo-
sition, a number of respondents were not comfortable with
the image that their living or working place is infested with
cockroaches. The incidences of damage by lizard (0.28%), ant
(0.28%), and mice (0.24%) were low in this study, although for
other countries, such as Malaysia, lizard (and also ant) could
be the greatest cause of trap damages. Therefore incidence
Pointed out to Encountered German Pointed out to infestation
cockroach size initiated from more than 6
units (≤1.5 cm) months ago
(107/149) 72% (80/150) 53%
(78/97) 80% (45/77) 58% (52/75) 69%
(10/18) 56% (11/18) 61%
(251/348) 72% (162/245) 66% (143/243) 59%
Table 5: Frequency of screened fans at the surveyed kitchens.
No. of units (%)
Cockroach infestation Total
Fan without screen Screened fan
Clean level of infestation 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 4
Infested with cockroach 9 (60.0%) 6 (40.0%) 15
Total 10 (52.6%) 9 (47.4%) 19
of trap damage can be associated with existing factors in the
surveyed location.
The other effective factors on cockroach infestations are
exclusion factors related to urban buildings. In this survey
35% of units (from 319 units) had opening in the wall or roof
without screen. The frequency of this factor for infested units
in three surveyed dormitories was 43% versus 33% for clean
level units. However, there was no significant (𝑃 = 0.05)
correlation between infestation and opening in the wall or
roof.
Crack and crevices had been detected for 39% of units
(from 306 units). Frequency of crack and crevices for infested
units of three dormitories was 15% versus 27.5% for clean
level units. However, there was no significant (𝑃 = 0.05)
correlation between infestation levels and crack and crevices.
Survey on 19 kitchens of dormitories showed electric
air fans (air conditioner fans) had been screened for 60%
infested kitchens versus 25% clean level kitchens. There was
a significant correlation (𝑃 < 0.05, Spearman) between
screened fans and infestation (𝑟 = −0.396, 𝑃 = 0.047)
(Table 5).
Kitchen drains were not screened in 53% of infested
kitchens versus 25% clean level kitchens in these dormitories.
However, there was no significant correlation (𝑃 = 0.05)
between infestation and unscreened drains.
Based on the residence opinions (survey on 283 residen-
tial units), the sources of cockroach infestation are the toilet
(65.7%), kitchen (40.3%), rubbish containers (22.3%), and
neighbors’ residence (21.6%) (Table 6). German cockroaches
prefer dry habitats with a nearby water source such as
kitchen and bathroom [38]. Stephan [39] reported 65%
of the emigrants German cockroach came from adjoining
kitchen areas. However, the American cockroach (with 0.6%
frequency in the surveyed dormitories) prefers wet and moist
locations such as sewers and toilet. Toilet and kitchen with
high frequency of choice by respondents could be the main
entrance-source of these species. However, the local name of
International Journal of Zoology
Table 6: The entrance-source of cockroaches according to standpoint of occupants for 283 surveyed units of dormitories.
The entrance- N N T T N, T, N, T, T, K, N N, T,
source of Toilet House Neighbours Rubbish and and and and and and and and K,
kitchen containers
cockroaches T R R K R K
Frequency 97 39 16 11 6 7 8 44 10 3 9
Percentage 34.3 13.8 5.7 3.9 2.12 2.8 2.8 15.6 3.5 1.1
∗
348 residents were questioned, although 81% of them had answer. T: toilet, K: kitchen, R: rubbish container, and N: neighbours.
cockroach in the research country is bath beetle which came
first from the American cockroach and their harborage. This
name may have misled some people to choose toilet as the
highest incidence rate for the entrance-source. Therefore, the
study shows that the viewpoints of the residents about the
entrance-source and predominant species concur with the
result from the cockroach trap counts. Seventy percent of
occupants in the surveyed dormitories and housing complex
(from 167 units; Table 4) encountered cockroaches with sizes
less than 1.5 cm (the German cockroach size) close to the
rate of the German cockroach-infested units of the same
buildings detected via trapping (82% from 148 infested units;
Table 1). However, incidence of infested units encountered
by residents was 28% higher than that estimated from the
cockroach traps counts exercise.
In conclusion, more attention needs to be given to view-
points of residents and factors affecting population (moni-
toring methods, damages, and exclusion) when conducting
a survey on cockroach in urban communities.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Professor Dr. Dzolkhifli B. Omar,
Prof. Dr. Yusof B. Ibrahim, Dr. Mohd Khadri Shahar, and
Dr. Faizah Abood for technical help and their guidance for
the duration of this project. They thank the Vice-Chancellor
of Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj University,
Azad University, and Tarbiat Moallem University for their
invaluable assistance for access to the study sampling units.
References
[1] D. G. Cochran, “Cockroaches,” Technical Report, World Health
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1982.
[2] R. J. Brenner, “Economics and medical importance of German
cockroaches,” in Understanding and Controlling the German
Cockroach, M. K. Rust, J. M. Owens, and D. A. Reierson, Eds.,
pp. 77–92, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[3] M. A. Baumholtz, L. C. Parish, J. A. Witkowski, and W. B. Nut-
ting, “The medical importance of cockroaches,” International
Journal of Dermatology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 90–96, 1997.
[4] H. Fathpour, G. Emtiazi, and E. Ghasemi, “Cockroaches as res-
ervoirs and vectors of drug resistant Salmonella spp.,” Iranian
Biomedical Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 35–38, 2003.
[5] P. Saichua, K. Pinmai, S. Somrithipol, and S. Tor-Udom, “Iso-
lation of medically important fungi from cockroaches trapped
at Thammasat Chalermprakiat Hospital,” Thammasat Medical
Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 345–351, 2008.
5
Others Did
(yard or not Total
R K and R drainage) know
1 18 7 8 283∗
3.2 0.4 6.4 1.2 2.8 100
[6] Y. M. Tatfeng, M. U. Usuanlele, A. Orukpe et al., “Mechanical
transmission of pathogenic organisms: the role of cockroaches,”
Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 129–134, 2005.
[7] H. H. Pai, W. C. Chen, and C. F. Peng, “Cockroaches as potential
vectors of nosocomial infections,” Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 979–984, 2004.
[8] S. J. N. Devi and C. J. Murray, “Cockroaches (Blatta and Peripla-
neta species) as reservoirs of drug-resistant salmonellas,” Epide-
miology and Infection, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 357–361, 1991.
[9] H. H. Pai, W. C. Chen, and C. F. Peng, “Isolation of bacteria with
antibiotic resistance from household cockroaches (Periplaneta
americana and Blattella germanica),” Acta Tropica, vol. 93, no.
3, pp. 259–265, 2005.
[10] E. P. Benson, Ecology and control of the smokybrown cockroach,
periplaneta fuliginosa (Serville), in South Carolina [M.S. thesis],
Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 1988.
[11] J. Lane, R. Siebers, G. Pene, P. Howden-Chapman, and J. Crane,
“Tokelau: a unique low allergen environment at sea level,” Clini-
cal and Experimental Allergy, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 479–482, 2005.
[12] C. Y. Lee, N. L. Chong, and H. H. Yap, “A study on domiciliary
cockroach infestation in Penang, Malaysia,” Journal of Bio-
sciences, vol. 4, pp. 95–98, 1993.
[13] C. Y. Lee and L. C. Lee, “Diversity of cockroach species and
effect of sanitation on level of cockroach infestation in residen-
tial premises,” Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 17, pp. 39–43, 2000.
[14] P. Oothuman, J. Jeffery, M. Z. Daud, L. Rampal, and C. Shekhar,
“Distribution of different species of cockroaches in the district
of Kelang, Selangor,” Journal of the Malaysian Society of Health,
vol. 4, pp. 52–56, 1984.
[15] H. H. Yap, N. L. Chong, P. Y. Loh, R. Baba, and A. M. Yahaya,
“Survey of domiciliary cockroaches in Penang, Malaysia,” Jour-
nal of Biosciences, vol. 2, pp. 71–75, 1991.
[16] H. H. Yap, C. H. Ong, N. L. Chong et al., “Cockroach infestation
in different household settlements in rural, suburban and urban
areas on Penang Island, Malaysia,” Journal of Biosciences, vol. 8,
pp. 182–186, 1997.
[17] C. Y. Lee and W. H. Robinson, Handbook of Malaysian House-
hold and Structural Pests, Pest Control Association of Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2001.
[18] C. Y. Lee, H. H. Yap, N. L. Chong, and Z. Jaal, Urban Pest Control,
Vector Control Research Unit, University Science Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1999.
[19] J. Goddard, Physician’s Guide to arthropods of Medical Impor-
tance, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 4th edition, 2003.
[20] W. Ebeling, Urban Entomology, University of California Press,
Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1978.
6 International Journal of Zoology

[21] D. G. Cochran, “Monitoring for insecticide resistance in field-

collected strains of the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattel-
lidae),” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 336–
341, 1989.
[22] H. Ladonni, “Susceptibility of Blattella germanica to different
insecticides in different hospitals in Tehran-Iran,” Journal of the
Entomological Research Society, vol. 23, pp. 12–13, 1993.
[23] H. Ladonni, “Susceptibility of different field strains of Blattella
germanica to four pyrethroids (Orthoptera: Blattellidae),” Ira-
nian Journal of Public Health, vol. 26, pp. 35–40, 1997.
[24] M. K. Rust and D. A. Reierson, “Comparison of the laboratory
and field efficacy of insecticide used for German cockroach con-
trol,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 704–
708, 1978.
[25] A. A. Hanafi-Bojd and S. Sadaghiani, Cockroaches of Iran, Teh-
ran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services Press,
Tehran, Iran, 2001.
[26] A. Nemati, Kohkiluyeh va Boyer Ahmad Tourism Attractions,
Iran Tourism Online, Tehran, Iran, 2008.
[27] Anon, Annual Statistics of Province of Kohkiluyeh va Boyerah-
mad, Provincial Office of Meteorology, Yasuj, Iran, 2004.
[28] D. A. Reierson, Ed., Understanding and Controlling the German
Cockroach, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1995.
[29] A. G. Appel and B. L. Reid, “Sampling German cockroach field
populations: theory, reliability, and analysis,” in Proceedings of
the National Conference on Urban Entomology, College Park,
Md, USA, 1992.
[30] W. J. Bell, L. M. Roth, and C. A. Nalepa, “Social behavior,” in
Cockroaches: Ecology, Behavior, and Natural History, H. E. Hin-
ton, Ed., p. 230, JHU Press, Baltimore, Md, USA, 2007.
[31] G. K. Joseph, The Cockroach, University of Massachusetts,
Massachusetts, Mass, USA, 2007.
[32] J. H. Paige, Seasnality and population dynamics of German
cockroaches, Blattella germanica (L) (Dictyoptera: Blrttellidae)
in single family dwellings in Texas [Ph.D. thesis], Texas A&M
University, Texas, Tex, USA, 1989.
[33] B. L. Brenner, S. Markowitz, M. Rivera et al., “Integrated pest
management in an urban community: a successful partnership
for prevention,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 111, no.
13, pp. 1647–1653, 2003.
[34] V. K. Agrawal and R. Tilak, “Field performance of imidacloprid
gel bait against German cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blatellidae),”
Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 89–94,
2006.
[35] C. Y. Lee, N. L. Chong, and H. H. Yap, “Laboratory evaluation
of three traps against Periplaneta americana (L.) and Blattella
germanica (L.),” Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 11, pp. 11–15, 1994.
[36] L. M. Smith and A. G. Appel, “Comparison of several traps for
catching German cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) under
laboratory conditions,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol.
101, no. 1, pp. 151–158, 2008.
[37] C. Wang and G. W. Bennett, “Comparative study of integrated
pest management and baiting for German cockroach manage-
ment in public housing,” Journal of Economic Entomology, vol.
99, no. 3, pp. 879–885, 2006.
[38] P. G. Koehler, R. S. Patterson, and W. R. Martin, “Susceptibility
of cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae, Blattidae) to infection
by Steinernema carpocapsae,” Journal of Economic Entomology,
vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 1184–1187, 1992.
[39] R. E. Stephan, Factors influencing the movement German cock-
roaches [Ph.D. thesis], Purdue University, Purdue, Ind, USA,
1984.
 International Journal of

Peptides

Advances in
BioMed
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Stem Cells
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Virolog y
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
Genomics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of
Nucleic Acids

Zoology
 International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of The Scientific

Signal Transduction
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Genetics Anatomy International Journal of Biochemistry Advances in

Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com
Microbiology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Bioinformatics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Enzyme International Journal of Molecular Biology Journal of

Archaea
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com
Evolutionary Biology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Marine Biology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014