CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Parasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentMosquito-borne diseases and controlVector-borne infectious diseases

The influence of microfilaria! density of dog heartworm Dirofilaria immitis on infection rate and survival of Aedes notoscriptus and Culex annulirostris from Australia

RUSSELL, RICHARD C., GEARY, MERILYN J.·1996·Medical and Veterinary Entomology
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1996.tb00078.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract. The mosquitoes Aedes notoscriptus and Culex annulirostris , previously shown to be competent vectors of Dirofilaria immitis , were allowed to feed on dogs with densities of microfilariae ranging from 2665 to 33,055 microfilariae/ml. Filaria developed in both species at a similar rate independent of the initial microfilarial density. Cx annulirostris ingested more microfilariae although the number of developing larvae was consistently greater in Ae. notoscriptus; one female Ae. notoscriptus carried sixty‐two third‐stage larvae 10 days after feeding, although no more than twelve were found in Cx annulirostris. The mortality rate of Ae. notoscriptus in the first 3 days of filarial development was related to increasing microfilarial density, and was greater than that of Cx annulirostris , which quickly reduced its worm load and survived with fewer third‐stage larvae but for longer than Ae. notoscriptus. The vector efficiency index was higher at all microfilarial densities for Ae. notoscriptus , but its survival was much reduced, and therefore Cx annulirostris may be the more effective vector in localities where dogs have very high parasitaemias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1996.tb00078.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In California, the Sierra Nevada focus of dirofilariasis in coyote populations is stable, with prevalence not changing substantially from 1975-1985 to 2000-2002 (from 35% to 42%).

    “The expansion of dirofilariasis in coyote populations has been studied in California, where it has been demonstrated that the Sierra Nevada focus is stable, because the prevalence in this area did not change substantially from the period of 1975 to 1985 to the period of 2000 to 2002 (from 35% to 42%).”

    From Human and animal dirofilariasis: The emergence of a zoonotic mosaic (2012) · cites this paper as [366]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
RUSSELL, R. C., & GEARY, M. J.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
RUSSELL, RICHARD C.
ORCID
RUSSELL, RICHARD C.
Venue
Medical and Veterinary Entomology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
29-34
ISSN
  • 0269-283X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2915
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2915.1996.tb00078.x
OpenAlex
W2019478436
Cited by
34
References
11
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4562 d)
Locations
  • Medical and Veterinary Entomology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Parasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Vector-borne infectious diseases
Keywords
Dirofilaria immitis, Aedes notoscriptus, Culex annulirostris, microfilarial density, mosquito competence, mosquito survival, third-stage larvae, filarial development, canine heartworm disease
MeSH terms
Aedes, Animals, Culex, Dirofilaria immitis, Dirofilariasis, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Female, Microfilariae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review