4.6 Article

Anopheline and culicine mosquitoes are not repelled by surfaces treated with the entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana

期刊

PARASITES & VECTORS
卷 3, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-3-80

关键词

-

资金

  1. Addessium foundation, Reeuwijk, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Entomopathogenic fungi, Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana, are promising bio-pesticides for application against adult malaria mosquito vectors. An understanding of the behavioural responses of mosquitoes towards these fungi is necessary to guide development of fungi beyond the 'proof of concept' stage and to design suitable intervention tools. Methods: Here we tested whether oil-formulations of the two fungi could be detected and avoided by adult Anopheles gambiae s.s., Anopheles arabiensis and Culex quinquefasciatus. The bioassays used a glass chamber divided into three compartments (each 250 x 250 x 250 mm): release, middle and stimulus compartments. Netting with or without fungus was fitted in front of the stimulus compartment. Mosquitoes were released and the proportion that entered the stimulus compartment was determined and compared between treatments. Treatments were untreated netting (control 1), netting with mineral oil (control 2) and fungal conidia formulated in mineral oil evaluated at three different dosages (2 x 10(10), 4 x 10(10) and 8 x 10(10) conidia m(-2)). Results: Neither fungal strain was repellent as the mean proportion of mosquitoes collected in the stimulus compartment did not differ between experiments with surfaces treated with and without fungus regardless of the fungal isolate and mosquito species tested. Conclusion: Our results indicate that mineral-oil formulations of M. anisopliae and B. bassiana were not repellent against the mosquito species tested. Therefore, both fungi are suitable candidates for the further development of tools that aim to control host-seeking or resting mosquitoes using entomopathogenic fungi.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据