Cargando…

Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature

The risks of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus nuisance and vector‐borne diseases are rising and the adverse effects of broad‐spectrum insecticide application have promoted species‐specific techniques, such as sterile insect technique (SIT) and other genetic strategies, as contenders in their contr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonds, Jane AS, Collins, C Matilda, Gouagna, Louis‐Clément
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9323472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35294802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.6870
_version_ 1784756559157395456
author Bonds, Jane AS
Collins, C Matilda
Gouagna, Louis‐Clément
author_facet Bonds, Jane AS
Collins, C Matilda
Gouagna, Louis‐Clément
author_sort Bonds, Jane AS
collection PubMed
description The risks of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus nuisance and vector‐borne diseases are rising and the adverse effects of broad‐spectrum insecticide application have promoted species‐specific techniques, such as sterile insect technique (SIT) and other genetic strategies, as contenders in their control operations. When specific vector suppression is proposed, potential effects on predators and wider ecosystem are some of the first stakeholder questions. These are not the only Aedes vectors of human diseases, but are those for which SIT and genetic strategies are of most interest. They vary ecologically and in habitat origin, but both have behaviorally human‐adapted forms with expanding ranges. The aquatic life stages are where predation is strongest due to greater resource predictability and limited escape opportunity. These vectors' anthropic forms usually use ephemeral water bodies and man‐made containers as larval habitats; predators that occur in these are mobile, opportunistic and generalist. No literature indicates that any predator depends on larvae of either species. As adults, foraging theory predicts these mosquitoes are of low profitability to predators. Energy expended hunting and consuming will mostly outweigh their energetic benefit. Moreover, as adult biomass is mobile and largely disaggregated, any predator is likely to be a generalist and opportunist. This work, which summarizes much of the literature currently available on the predators of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, indicates it is highly unlikely that any predator species depends on them. Species‐specific vector control to reduce nuisance and disease is thus likely to be of negligible or limited impact on nontarget predators. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9323472
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93234722022-07-30 Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature Bonds, Jane AS Collins, C Matilda Gouagna, Louis‐Clément Pest Manag Sci Reviews The risks of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus nuisance and vector‐borne diseases are rising and the adverse effects of broad‐spectrum insecticide application have promoted species‐specific techniques, such as sterile insect technique (SIT) and other genetic strategies, as contenders in their control operations. When specific vector suppression is proposed, potential effects on predators and wider ecosystem are some of the first stakeholder questions. These are not the only Aedes vectors of human diseases, but are those for which SIT and genetic strategies are of most interest. They vary ecologically and in habitat origin, but both have behaviorally human‐adapted forms with expanding ranges. The aquatic life stages are where predation is strongest due to greater resource predictability and limited escape opportunity. These vectors' anthropic forms usually use ephemeral water bodies and man‐made containers as larval habitats; predators that occur in these are mobile, opportunistic and generalist. No literature indicates that any predator depends on larvae of either species. As adults, foraging theory predicts these mosquitoes are of low profitability to predators. Energy expended hunting and consuming will mostly outweigh their energetic benefit. Moreover, as adult biomass is mobile and largely disaggregated, any predator is likely to be a generalist and opportunist. This work, which summarizes much of the literature currently available on the predators of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, indicates it is highly unlikely that any predator species depends on them. Species‐specific vector control to reduce nuisance and disease is thus likely to be of negligible or limited impact on nontarget predators. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2022-04-07 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9323472/ /pubmed/35294802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.6870 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Reviews
Bonds, Jane AS
Collins, C Matilda
Gouagna, Louis‐Clément
Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature
title Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature
title_full Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature
title_fullStr Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature
title_full_unstemmed Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature
title_short Could species‐focused suppression of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and Aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? An evidence synthesis from the literature
title_sort could species‐focused suppression of aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, and aedes albopictus, the tiger mosquito, affect interacting predators? an evidence synthesis from the literature
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9323472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35294802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.6870
work_keys_str_mv AT bondsjaneas couldspeciesfocusedsuppressionofaedesaegyptitheyellowfevermosquitoandaedesalbopictusthetigermosquitoaffectinteractingpredatorsanevidencesynthesisfromtheliterature
AT collinscmatilda couldspeciesfocusedsuppressionofaedesaegyptitheyellowfevermosquitoandaedesalbopictusthetigermosquitoaffectinteractingpredatorsanevidencesynthesisfromtheliterature
AT gouagnalouisclement couldspeciesfocusedsuppressionofaedesaegyptitheyellowfevermosquitoandaedesalbopictusthetigermosquitoaffectinteractingpredatorsanevidencesynthesisfromtheliterature