Use of cyclopoid copepods for mosquito control

Marten, Gerald G.; Bordes, Edgar S.; Nguyen, Mieu

doi:10.1007/bf00229976

Cited by 63 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our earlier study, the number of prey eliminated by the copepod M. thermocyclopoides increased with increasing prey density (Kumar and Rao 2003). The per capita larval removal by the copepod M. aspericornis in the present study is comparable to that recorded by Brown et al (1991a), Marten et al (1994a) and Kumar and Rao (2003). Shallow and eutrophic water bodies that are also breeding sites for mosquitoes are often inhabited by this cyclopoid copepod.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Considering the availability of alternative prey along with the heterogeneity of the habitats in temporary pools, temporary aquatic habitats are depicted as so-called 'enemy-free' spaces (Brendonck et al 2002). In many mosquito-breeding habitats, the following predators of mosquito larvae have been noted: cyclopoid copepods (Marten et al 1994a(Marten et al , 1994bZoppi de Roa et al 2002), dytiscid beetles such as Rhantus signatus signatus (Fabricius, 1775) (Fischer et al 2000;Campos et al 2004), Rhantus sikkimensis (Regimbart, 1899) (Aditya et al 2006a(Aditya et al , 2006b, the notonectid bugs Notonecta maculata (Fabricius, 1794) and Anisops sardea (Kirkaldy, 1904) (Murdoch et al 1984;Eitam et al 2002;Kiflawi et al 2003;Eitam and Blaustein 2004), the mosquitofish (Wurtsbaugh et al 1980;Howe et al 1997), and the cannibalistic mosquito larvae Toxorhynchites (Theobald 1901) (Collins and Blackwell 2000). These predators regulate mosquito populations and even influence their oviposition and habitat-selection behaviour (Kiflawi et al 2003;Blaustein et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential of three aquatic predators to control mosquitoes in the presence of alternative prey: a comparative experimental assessment

Kumar

Muhid

Dahms‬

et al. 2008

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predator-induced control of pests depends on the predator's preference for the target pest over naturally co-occurring prey species. We compared the larvivorous efficiency of three common freshwater predators: mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis; Baird and Girard, 1854), dragonfly naiads (Zyxomma petiolatum; Rambur, 1842) and copepods (Mesocyclops aspericornis; Daday, 1906) on different instars and the relative abundances of the mosquito Anopheles stephensi (Liston, 1901) in the presence of alternative cladoceran prey, either Moina macrocopa (Straus, 1820) or Daphnia similoides (Hudec, 1991). Larval removal rate decreased with increasing larval size and instar stage. The maximum consumption rate was by mosquitofish, followed by dragonfly naiads and copepods. The presence of either of the alternative prey significantly reduced larval consumption by all three predators, except in the D. similoides-mosquito larvae combination for naiads. Mosquitofish and copepods preferred early instars of the mosquito. Prey selectivity indices for early mosquito instars against D. similoides did not differ between mosquitofish and copepods, whereas naiads had significantly lower index values than the other two predators. Considering the negative impacts of mosquitofish on native assemblages, that is, its invasiveness and its lower selectivity for mosquito larvae, our results suggest that the feasibility of using copepods in large-scale control programs needs to be evaluated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of three aquatic predators to control mosquitoes in the presence of alternative prey: a comparative experimental assessment

Kumar

Muhid

Dahms‬

et al. 2008

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Predaceous copepods in the genera Mesocyclops and Macrocyclops have been used successfully as biological control agents to control Aedes spp. mosquitoes that transmit dengue (Marten et al 1994;Kay et al 2002;Kay & Nam 2005;Nam et al 2005;Kittayapong et al 2008). In Vietnam, biological control efforts targeted larval breeding sites where the productivity of Aedes aegypti was especially high (Kay et al 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predators indirectly control vector-borne disease: linking predator–prey and host–pathogen models

Moore

Borer

Hosseini

2009

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pathogens transmitted by arthropod vectors are common in human populations, agricultural systems and natural communities. Transmission of these vector-borne pathogens depends on the population dynamics of the vector species as well as its interactions with other species within the community. In particular, predation may be sufficient to control pathogen prevalence indirectly via the vector. To examine the indirect effect of predators on vectored-pathogen dynamics, we developed a theoretical model that integrates predator-prey and host-pathogen theory. We used this model to determine whether predation can prevent pathogen persistence or alter the stability of host-pathogen dynamics. We found that, in the absence of predation, pathogen prevalence in the host increases with vector fecundity, whereas predation on the vector causes pathogen prevalence to decline, or even become extinct, with increasing vector fecundity. We also found that predation on a vector may drastically slow the initial spread of a pathogen. The predator can increase host abundance indirectly by reducing or eliminating infection in the host population. These results highlight the importance of studying interactions that, within the greater community, may alter our predictions when studying disease dynamics. From an applied perspective, these results also suggest situations where an introduced predator or the natural enemies of a vector may slow the rate of spread of an emerging vector-borne pathogen.

show abstract

“…There are several biological agents that have been shown to cause mortality in mosquitoes including algae [141,142], oomycetes [143,144], bacteria ( Bti , Ls , and recombinant bacteria) [145,146], microsporidian and gregarine parasites [147,148], pathogenic viruses [145], nematodes [149], predatory insects [150,151] including other mosquitoes [152,153], copepods [154,155], fish [156,157] and others. For general reviews of biological control of mosquitoes consult Chapman [158], Floore [159], and Rey [160].…”

Section: Transient Methods Of Wetlands Mosquito Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The efficacy of copepods in open water habitats such as wetlands is less well documented. They have been found effective in temporary pools and Louisiana marshes [154], rice fields [179], and in roadside ditches and some polluted habitats where larvivorous fish are lacking [180]. Use of fish is often more efficient in large open water habitats but copepods may still have a place to complement fish predation or in inaccessible areas or where fish are not present or hard to maintain [130].…”

Section: Transient Methods Of Wetlands Mosquito Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

North American Wetlands and Mosquito Control

Rey

Walton

Wolfe

et al. 2012

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetlands are valuable habitats that provide important social, economic, and ecological services such as flood control, water quality improvement, carbon sequestration, pollutant removal, and primary/secondary production export to terrestrial and aquatic food chains. There is disagreement about the need for mosquito control in wetlands and about the techniques utilized for mosquito abatement and their impacts upon wetlands ecosystems. Mosquito control in wetlands is a complex issue influenced by numerous factors, including many hard to quantify elements such as human perceptions, cultural predispositions, and political climate. In spite of considerable progress during the last decades, habitat protection and environmentally sound habitat management still remain inextricably tied to politics and economics. Furthermore, the connections are often complex, and occur at several levels, ranging from local businesses and politicians, to national governments and multinational institutions. Education is the key to lasting wetlands conservation. Integrated mosquito abatement strategies incorporate many approaches and practicable options, as described herein, and need to be well-defined, effective, and ecologically and economically sound for the wetland type and for the mosquito species of concern. The approach will certainly differ in response to disease outbreaks caused by mosquito-vectored pathogens versus quality of life issues caused by nuisance-biting mosquitoes. In this contribution, we provide an overview of the ecological setting and context for mosquito control in wetlands, present pertinent information on wetlands mosquitoes, review the mosquito abatement options available for current wetlands managers and mosquito control professionals, and outline some necessary considerations when devising mosquito control strategies. Although the emphasis is on North American wetlands, most of the material is applicable to wetlands everywhere.

show abstract

Use of cyclopoid copepods for mosquito control

Cited by 63 publications

References 11 publications

Potential of three aquatic predators to control mosquitoes in the presence of alternative prey: a comparative experimental assessment

Potential of three aquatic predators to control mosquitoes in the presence of alternative prey: a comparative experimental assessment

Predators indirectly control vector-borne disease: linking predator–prey and host–pathogen models

North American Wetlands and Mosquito Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About