| Literature DB >> 21729269 |
Eliningaya J Kweka1, Guofa Zhou, Thomas M Gilbreath, Yaw Afrane, Mramba Nyindo, Andrew K Githeko, Guiyun Yan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current status of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes and the effects of insecticides on non-target insect species have raised the need for alternative control methods for malaria vectors. Predation has been suggested as one of the important regulation mechanisms for malaria vectors in long-lasting aquatic habitats, but the predation efficiency of the potential predators is largely unknown in the highlands of western Kenya. In the current study, we examined the predation efficiency of five predators on Anopheles gambiae s.s larvae in 24 hour and semi- field evaluations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21729269 PMCID: PMC3141748 DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-4-128
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Figure 1Habitats used for 24 hour evaluation and semi-field experimental settings: habitat without (A) and with refugia (B).
Figure 2Larval survival rate (measure of predation efficiency) after 12 Hours and 24 Hours of exposure to predators in 24 hour evaluation for morning and evening experimental settings. From top to bottom: A) Backswimmer, B) Belestoma, C) Dragon Fly nymph, D) Gambusia affins, E) Tadpole.
The analysis of effect of combined factors in predation efficiency of aquatic predators against third instar larvae of An. gambiae s.s in 24 hour evaluation settings
| Source of variations | F-test | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Habitat types (H) | 30.8 5, 266 | < 0.0001 |
| Prey density (P) | 35.5 10, 532 | < 0.0001 |
| Predator species (Ps) | 15.5 20, 883 | < 0.0001 |
| H × P | 3.2 10, 532 | < 0.0001 |
| H × Ps | 7.2 20, 883 | < 0.0001 |
| P × Ps | 6.0 40,1162 | < 0.0001 |
| H × P × Ps | 3.3 40,1162 | < 0.0001 |
The efficiency of predators in reducing the survival rates of against third instar larvae of An. gambiae s.s in semi-field experimental settings
| Predator species | Mean (± SD) | Relative reduction (%) | Levelx |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.92 ± 0.21 | 0 | a |
| Tadpole | 0.86 ± 0.26 | 6.08 | a |
| Belestoma | 0.56 ± 0.31 | 39.24 | b |
| Dragonfly Nymph | 0.37 ± 0.35 | 59.60 | c |
| 0.28 ± 0.32 | 69.69 | c | |
| Backswimmer | 0.24 ± 0.33 | 74.30 | c |
Percentage of relative reduction was calculated against control population.
x Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different
The efficiency of predators in reducing the pupation rates in semi-field experimental settings.
| Predator species | Mean (± SD) | Relative reduction (%) | Levelx |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 99.43 ± 1.71 | 0 | a |
| Tadpole | 97.01 ± 3.97 | 2.42 | a |
| Belestoma | 56.86 ± 26.05 | 42.81 | b |
| Dragonfly Nymph | 19.40 ± 10.44 | 80.49 | c |
| 8.75 ± 9.49 | 91.20 | d | |
| Backswimmer | 3.38 ± 4.14 | 96.61 | d |
Percentage of relative reduction was calculated against control population.
x Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different
The analysis of effect of combined factors in pupation rate reduction efficiency of aquatic predators against third instar larvae of An. gambiae in semi-field settings
| Source of variations | F-test | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Habitat type(H) | 74.611,324 | < 0.0001 |
| Prey density(P) | 29.592,324 | < 0.0001 |
| Predator species (Ps) | 1942.675,324 | < 0.0001 |
| H × P | 0.332, 324 | 0.716 |
| H × Ps | 11.815,324 | < 0.0001 |
| P × Ps | 39.6310, 324 | < 0.0001 |
| H × P × Ps | 0.74 10, 324 | 0.69 |
The analysis of combined factors effects on daily survival rates (predation rates) reduction efficiency of aquatic predators against An. gambiae third instar larvae in semi-field settings
| Source of variations | F-test | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Habitat type (H) | 57.1545, 324 | < 0.0001 |
| Prey density (P) | 0.2702, 324 | 0.76 |
| Predator species (Ps) | 12.0281, 324 | < 0.001 |
| H × P | 0.7725, 324 | 0.57 |
| H × Ps | 0.0692, 324 | 0.93 |
| P × Ps | 0.79610, 324 | 0.63 |
| H × P × Ps | 0.10010, 324 | 0.99 |
Figure 3Amplification of A) Backswimmer, B) Belestoma, C) Dragon Fly nymph, D) Gambusia affins, E) Tadpole. Column: 1 = An. gambiae s.s. DNA, positive control; 2-11 = DNA from midguts of 10 predators; 12 = negative control, 13 = An. arabiensis DNA, control for primer specificity.