| Literature DB >> 19361337 |
Ulrike Fillinger1, Heleen Sombroek, Silas Majambere, Emiel van Loon, Willem Takken, Steven W Lindsay.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ideally larval control activities should be targeted at sites that generate the most adult vectors, thereby reducing operational costs. Despite the plethora of potential mosquito breeding sites found in the floodplains of the Gambia River, about 150 km from its mouth, during the rainy season, only a small proportion are colonized by anophelines on any day. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of larval habitats most frequently and most densely populated by anopheline larvae and to estimate the numbers of adults produced in different habitats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19361337 PMCID: PMC2674466 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-62
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Area samplers for sampling aquatic fauna.
Figure 2Emergence traps used for estimating adult vector production per habitat type.
Habitat types surveyed for absence (controls) and presence (cases) of Anopheles larvae
| Puddles | 2 | 3 | |
| Man-made pits | 3 | 4 | |
| Pools | 7 | 8 | |
| Ricefields | 0 | 2 | |
| Puddles | 1 | 3 | |
| Pools | 6 | 7 | |
| Stream fringes | 7 | 15 | |
| Ricefields | 17 | 19 | |
| Floodwater | 32 | 22 | |
Descriptive statistics for habitats without (controls) and with (cases) Anopheles larvae
| χ2 | ||||
| of tidal water bodies | 72.0% | 74.7% | 0.701 | 0.147 |
| of deep waterbodies (>50 cm) | 25.3% | 22.9% | 0.720 | 0.129 |
| of habitats with fish | 20.0% | 14.5% | 0.355 | 0.854 |
| of habitats with Culicinae | 20.0% | 53.0% | 18.351 | |
| of habitats with Odonata | 14.7% | 38.6% | 11.349 | |
| of habitats with Coleoptera larvae | 12.0% | 27.7% | 6.021 | |
| of habitats with Coleoptera adults | 24.0% | 39.8% | 4.476 | |
| of habitats with Ephemeropera | 5.4% | 20.5% | 7.845 | |
| of habitats with Heteroptera | 26.7% | 49.4% | 8.589 | |
| Diversity index | 0.27 (0.18–0.35) | 0.85 (0.73–0.97) | 7.898 | |
| Water depths (cm) | 7.2 (5.5–8.9) | 7.0 (5.6–8.5) | 0.871 | 0.163 |
| Vegetation cover of habitats (%) | 50.3 (42.4–58.3) | 48.6 (41.7–55.5) | 0.745 | 0.326 |
| Water temperature (°C) | 30.4 (29.6–31.3) | 29.4 (28.5–30.3) | 0.111 | 1.044 |
| pH | 6.4 (6.2–6.6) | 6.5 (6.3–6.7) | 0.373 | -0.894 |
| Conductivity (μS/cm) | 7009 (4700–9319) | 3621 (2331–4911) | 2.609 | |
| Turbidity (ntu) | 136.9 (86.6–187.3) | 191.4(128.4–254.4) | 0.188 | -1.323 |
| Oxygen saturation (%) | 72.4 (63.1–81.8) | 83.2 (72.5–93.8) | 0.133 | -1.509 |
*Proportions are compared using χ2-test
**Means are compared using t-test
Anopheles larvae species composition per habitat type
| Floodwater | 95 | 34.7 | 21.2 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 15.2 | 30.3 | 18.2 | 30.3 |
| Rice field | 71 | 32.4 | 17.4 | 0.0 | 17.4 | 0.0 | 47.8 | 8.7 | 26.1 |
| Stream fringe | 76 | 39.5 | 10.0 | 6.7 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 53.3 | 20.0 | 16.7 |
| Pool | 213 | 21.1 | 53.3 | 6.7 | 46.7 | 0.0 | 28.9 | 11.1 | 6.7 |
| Puddle | 158 | 20.3 | 87.5 | 3.1 | 81.3 | 3.1 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 6.3 |
| Man-made pits | 95 | 16.8 | 87.5 | 6.3 | 75.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 |
*species of the An. gambiae complex summarized under An. gambiae s.l.
Figure 3Weekly average density of mosquito larvae and predatory insects per m.
Mean (95% CI) Anopheles larval densities in habitats upland and in the floodplain
| 10.0 (3.3–30.3)b | 2.7 (1.9–3.7)b | 0.239 | |
| 3.1 (2.0–4.8)b | 26.9 (8.2–87.6)a | 0.027 | |
| 47.7 (29.5–77.1)b | 5.00 (2.6–9.7)b | 0.050 | |
| 23.8 (5.4–104.8)b | - | n/a | |
| - | 4.3 (3.1–6.1)b | n/a | |
| - | 5.1 (3.0–8.6)b | n/a | |
| 0.066 | 0.027 |
a, b: different letters in lines (p < 0.05) or rows (p < 0.0125) indicate significance (in floodplain only comparison between pools and other habitats was run)
*Kruskall-Wallis-Test
Univariate analyses of factors associated with Anopheles larval density
| 1–10 m | 1 | |||
| 10–100 m | 0.434 | 0.096 | 1.961 | 0.278 |
| >100 m | 0.151 | 0.060 | 0.381 | <0.001 |
| 0–25% | 1 | |||
| 25–50% | 0.352 | 0.136 | 0.911 | 0.031 |
| 50–75% | 0.259 | 0.105 | 0.642 | 0.004 |
| 75–100% | 0.227 | 0.099 | 0.519 | 0.000 |
| no | 1 | |||
| yes | 0.232 | 0.101 | 0.533 | 0.001 |
| no | 1 | |||
| yes | 0.498 | 0.241 | 0.1.03 | 0.060 |
Emergence fauna collected in 715 trap-weeks
| 596 | 1.06 | |
| 434 | 0.77 | |
| 105,204 | 187.20 | |
| Chironomidae | 83,204 | 148.06 |
| Simuliidae | 1,518 | 2.70 |
| Culicidae | 7,514 | 13.37 |
| Culicinae | 7,201 | 12.81 |
| Anophelinae | 313 | 0.56 |
| 207 | 0.37 | |
| 73 | 0.13 | |
| 13 | 0.02 | |
| others | 20 | 0.04 |
Mean adult Anopheles densities per habitat type and odds ratio in comparison to pools
| Pools | 0.371 | 0.229 | 0.599 | 1.000 | |||
| Rice fields at edge of floodplain close to upland | 0.170 | 0.082 | 0.352 | 0.459 | 0.192 | 1.096 | 0.080 |
| Rice fields close to the river | 0.118 | 0.050 | 0.277 | 0.317 | 0.119 | 0.846 | 0.022 |
| Floodwater close to the edge of the floodplain | 0.042 | 0.013 | 0.139 | 0.114 | 0.032 | 0.411 | 0.001 |
| Floodwater close to the river | 0.040 | 0.012 | 0.130 | 0.107 | 0.030 | 0.385 | 0.001 |
| Stream fringes | 0.066 | 0.027 | 0.165 | 0.179 | 0.064 | 0.502 | 0.001 |
| Pools | 0.483 | 0.301 | 0.777 | 1.000 | |||
| Rice fields at edge of floodplain close to upland | 0.635 | 0.408 | 0.989 | 1.314 | 0.686 | 2.515 | 0.410 |
| Rice fields close to the river | 0.329 | 0.164 | 0.660 | 0.681 | 0.293 | 1.582 | 0.372 |
| Floodwater close to the edge of the floodplain | 0.360 | 0.219 | 0.592 | 0.745 | 0.374 | 1.481 | 0.401 |
| Floodwater close to the river | 0.238 | 0.123 | 0.461 | 0.493 | 0.218 | 1.112 | 0.088 |
| Stream fringes | 0.209 | 0.128 | 0.341 | 0.431 | 0.218 | 0.854 | 0.016 |
*GEE were used to calculate mean and 95% CI, with site ID as subject units, log linked mosquito
densities and habitat type as the factor
Figure 4Average adult anopheline densities per week and m. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5Weekly emergence of chironomids and predatory insects per m.
Figure 6Weekly emergence of .
Figure 7Weekly emergence of culicine mosquitoes per m.
Abiotic and biotic characteristics of six habitat types surveyed for insect emergence (values represent means (95% CI) of all sampling events during the rainy season 2005)
| Water temperature (°C) | Conductivity (μS/cm) | Turbidity (NTU) | Chironomida/m2/week | Odonata & Coleoptera/m2/week | Diversity | Frequency of algae present in habitat (%) | |
| Pools | 33.2 | 323 | 204 | 166 | 1.18 | 0.5 | 69.9 |
| Rice close to upland | 28.9 | 3138 | 316 | 334 | 1.11 | 0.36 | 61.6 |
| Rice far from upland | 30.0 | 2502 | 206 | 58 | 0.32 | 0.40 | 18.5 |
| Edge floodwater | 27.6 | 2064 | 76 | 105 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 21.7 |
| River floodwater | 28.7 | 1472 | 72 | 59 | 0.21 | 0.35 | 10.9 |
| Stream fringes | 25.7 | 7199 | 102 | 149 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 47.4 |
| ANOVA/χ2 | F(2,125) = | F(5,119) = | F(5,103) = | F(5,709) = | F(5,709) = | F(5,709) = | χ2 = 151.1, df = 5, |
Different letters indicate significance (p < 0.05) based on Gabriel post-hoc test for ANOVA, insect density was log transformed;
Chi2 test was used for comparing the proportion of time algae were found in a habitat type