| Literature DB >> 24759617 |
Susannah Townroe1, Amanda Callaghan1.
Abstract
The proliferation of artificial container habitats in urban areas has benefitted urban adaptable mosquito species globally. In areas where mosquitoes transmit viruses and parasites, it can promote vector population productivity and fuel mosquito-borne disease outbreaks. In Britain, storage of water in garden water butts is increasing, potentially expanding mosquito larval habitats and influencing population dynamics and mosquito-human contact. Here we show that the community composition, abundance and phenology of mosquitoes breeding in experimental water butt containers were influenced by urbanisation. Mosquitoes in urban containers were less species-rich but present in significantly higher densities (100.4±21.3) per container than those in rural containers (77.7±15.1). Urban containers were dominated by Culex pipiens (a potential vector of West Nile Virus [WNV]) and appear to be increasingly exploited by Anopheles plumbeus (a human-biting potential WNV and malaria vector). Culex phenology was influenced by urban land use type, with peaks in larval abundances occurring earlier in urban than rural containers. Among other factors, this was associated with an urban heat island effect which raised urban air and water temperatures by 0.9°C and 1.2°C respectively. Further increases in domestic water storage, particularly in urban areas, in combination with climate changes will likely alter mosquito population dynamics in the UK.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24759617 PMCID: PMC3997353 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Total (%) of mosquito species collected (as pupae) from rural and urban containers in 2011and 2012 and their potential as vectors of disease.
| 2011 | 2012 | 2011 & 2012 | Anthrop-ophagic | Likely bridge vector | Vector of disease in Europe | |||||
| Species | Rural | Urban | Total | Rural | Urban | Total | Total | |||
|
| 144 (31) | 36 (3) | 180 (10) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 180 (4) | X | - | Batai Virus |
|
| 12 (3) | 0 (0) | 12 (1) | 12 (1) | 264 (15) | 276 (9) | 288 (6) | X | X | WNV, Malaria ( |
|
| 192 (41) | 1212 (97) | 1404 (82) | 612 (55) | 1536 (85) | 2148 (74) | 3552 (77) | - | - | Ockelbo virus, SINV, TAHV, USUV, WNV |
|
| 108 (23) | 0 (0) | 108 (6) | 348 (31) | 0 (0) | 348 (12) | 456 (10) | - | - | Ockelbo Virus, SINV |
|
| 12 (3) | 0 (0) | 12 (1) | 144 (13) | 0 (0) | 144 (5) | 156 (3) | X | X | TAHV, USUV |
| Total | 468 | 1248 | 1716 | 1116 | 1800 | 2916 | 4632 | |||
*Information of host preference taken from Medlock et al. [32] and disease vector status from Medlock et al. [31] and 1Schaffner et al. [28].
Figure 1Total number and composition of mosquito species collected from containers.
Individuals collected as pupae in 2011 from rural (a) and urban (b) containers and in 2012 from rural (c) and urban containers (d), April to October. Note the Y axis is log10 transformed.
Mean total mosquito densities per container (±se) of each development stage of subfamilies Anophelinae and Culicinae by location and year.
| 2011 | 2012 | Rural | Urban | |
|
| ||||
| Total larvae | 5±1.4 | 2.8±1.3 | 4.7±1.6 | 3.4±1.1 |
| Pupae | 0.4±0.1 | 0.6±0.3 | 0.3±0.1 | 0.6±0.2 |
|
| ||||
| Total larvae | 99.9±20.8 | 66.2±13.7 | 73.0±15.3 | 97.0±21.4 |
| Pupae | 6.0±2.0 | 8.9±3.6 | 4.4±1.8 | 10.2±3.4 |
|
| ||||
| Total larvae | 105±20.6 | 69±13.8 | 77.7±15.1 | 100.4±21.3 |
| Pupae | 6.4±2.0 | 9.5±3.7 | 4.7±1.8 | 10.8±3.4 |
Results from best fit generalised linear mixed model fit by Laplace approximation. There was no significant main or interaction effect of ‘location’, ‘year’, or ‘season’ on Anopheles (analyses not shown). Bold type denotes significance at the 5% level.
Main effects and interaction effects of ‘location’ and ‘year’ on mean total of all mosquitoes and of Culicinae and main and interaction effects of ‘season’ and ‘location’ on Culicinae mosquitoes.
| Pupae | Total larvae | |||
| Factor |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Location urban | 2.195 |
| 3.354 |
|
| Year 2012 | −0.03 | 0.9 | −12.335 |
|
| Loc.urban x year2012 | 0.03 | 0.9 | 5.085 |
|
| Culicinae | ||||
| Location urban | 2.22 |
| 11.054 |
|
| Year 2012 | −0.03 | 0.9 | −12.301 |
|
| Loc.urban x year2012 | 0.03 | 0.9 | 5.006 |
|
|
| ||||
| Culicinae | ||||
| Mid-season vs Early season | −4.109 |
| 19.816 |
|
| Late season vs Early season | −0.84 | 0.4 | −4.879 |
|
| Loc. urban x mid-season | −2.149 |
| −26.076 |
|
| Loc. urban x late season | −7.525 |
| −20.785 |
|
Figure 2Interaction effects of ‘season’ and ‘location’ on culicine larval densities.
Interaction effects of ‘season’ (x axis) and ‘location’ (family of lines) on mean total culicine larval densities (±se) per container and mean total densities of each immature development stage, II-IV instar larvae and pupae (y axis), April to October 2011 and 2012.
Mean (±se), maximum and minimum air and water temperatures and effects of year and location on temperatures in 2011 and 2012.
| Factor | Temperature (°C) | d.f. effect, error | Test statistic |
| |
|
|
| ||||
| Air | 15.9±0.17 | 13.1±0.26 | 2,25 | 129.25 |
|
| Water | 15.6±0.18 | 13.6±0.26 | 2,25 | 63.25 |
|
|
|
| ||||
| Air | 15.6±0.38 | 14.7±0.39 | 2,25 | 16.13 |
|
| Water | 15.7±0.24 | 14.4±0.33 | 2,25 | 28.9 |
|
|
| |||||
|
| 16.4±0.16 | 15.5±0.21 | 1,18 | 3.49 |
|
| Max. | 22.9 | 28 | |||
| Min. | 8.1 | 7.1 | |||
|
| 16.1±0.17 | 15.08±0.23 | 1,18 | 3.54 |
|
| Max. | 25.2 | 23.2 | |||
| Min. | 8.6 | 8 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| 13.5±0.31 | 12.7±0.43 | 1,18 | 1.84 | 0.1 |
| Max. | 34.9 | 29.9 | |||
| Min. | −0.1 | −2.7 | |||
|
| 14.4±0.06 | 12.8±0.27 | 1,18 | 5.69 |
|
| Max. | 29.6 | 24.5 | |||
| Av. Max. | 16.5±0.23 | 14.3±0.42 | 1,18 | 4.61 |
|
| Min. | 3.3 | 1.6 | |||
| Av. Min. | 12.8±0.07 | 11.6±0.2 | 1,18 | 5.06 |
|