Cited by 96Malaria Research and ControlMosquito-borne diseases and controlInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

Predation efficiency of Anopheles gambiae larvae by aquatic predators in western Kenya highlands

Open access
Kweka, Eliningaya J, Zhou, Guofa, Gilbreath, Thomas M, Afrane, Yaw, Nyindo, Mramba, Githeko, Andrew K, Yan, Guiyun·2011·Parasites & Vectors

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. METHODS: Predators were collected from natural habitats and starved for 12 hours prior to starting experiments. Preliminary experiments were conducted to ascertain the larval stage most predated by each predator species. When each larval instar was subjected to predation, third instar larvae were predated at the highest rate. Third instar larvae of An. gambiae were introduced into artificial habitats with and without refugia at various larval densities. The numbers of surviving larvae were counted after 24 hours in 24. In semi-field experiments, the larvae were counted daily until they were all either consumed or had developed to the pupal stage. Polymerase chain reaction was used to confirm the presence of An. gambiae DNA in predator guts. RESULTS: Experiments found that habitat type (P < 0.0001) and predator species (P < 0.0001) had a significant impact on the predation rate in the 24 hour evaluations. In semi-field experiments, predator species (P < 0.0001) and habitat type (P < 0.0001) were significant factors in both the daily survival and the overall developmental time of larvae. Pupation rates took significantly longer in habitats with refugia. An. gambiae DNA was found in at least three out of ten midguts for all predator species. Gambusia affins was the most efficient, being three times more efficient than tadpoles. CONCLUSION: These experiments provide insight into the efficiency of specific natural predators against mosquito larvae. These naturally occurring predators may be useful in biocontrol strategies for aquatic stage An. gambiae mosquitoes. Further investigations should be done in complex natural habitats for these predators.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1756-3305-4-128

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kweka, E. J., Zhou, G., Gilbreath, T. M., Afrane, Y., Nyindo, M., Githeko, A. K., & Yan, G.
Affiliations
  • Kenya Medical Research Institute (KE)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Tumaini University (TZ)
Corresponding author
Kweka, Eliningaya J
Venue
Parasites & Vectors
Published
2011-07-05
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
128-128
ISSN
1756-3305 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119366012
Cited by
95
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Parasites & Vectors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI050243)
  • Fogarty International Center (D43TW001505)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
Keywords
Anopheles gambiae, aquatic predators, predation efficiency, Gambusia affinis, tadpoles, larval instars, larval survival, pupation rate, western Kenya highlands
MeSH terms
Animals, Anopheles, Cyprinodontiformes, Kenya, Larva, Predatory Behavior, Survival Analysis

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