4.2 Article

Amphibian predation on larval mosquitoes

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 86, 期 10, 页码 1159-1164

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Z08-097

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources
  2. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
  3. National Science Foundation [IOB-0615361]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mosquitoes (Culex pipiens L., 1758) are important vectors for diseases of both wildlife and humans. Understanding how natural factors influence mosquito abundance may provide insights into the ecology of various diseases, as well as solutions to controlling disease vectors. One of the natural factors regulating mosquito distributions and population sizes is predation. A poorly understood source of natural mosquito predation is amphibians. We determined the mosquito consumption capability of two amphibians, adult Red-spotted Newts (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens (Rafinesque, 1820)) and larval Mole Salamanders (Ambystoma talpoideum (Holbrook, 1838)). We also compared mosquito consumption of eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki Girard, 1859), a known predator of mosquitoes, and A. talpoideum. Both salamander species were capable of consuming large numbers of mosquito larvae per day (least-square meansa +/- 1 SE = 439 +/- 20 and 316 +/- 35 mosquitoes/day consumed by A. talpoideum and N.av.aviridescens, respectively). In A. talpoideum, mosquito consumption scaled with body size, with the largest individual (4.4 g) ingesting 902 mosquitoes in 1aday. Gambusia holbrooki consumed 3.5 x more mosquitoes during a 24 h feeding trial than similar-sized A. talpoideum. Our findings suggest that amphibians could have a substantial impact on mosquito larvae abundance, especially considering that amphibians can reach densities of up to 500 000 individuals/ha. Furthermore, we hypothesize that introduction of G. holbrooki could reduce abundances of native mosquito predators (e.g., salamanders) indirectly, through competition for invertebrate prey.

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

4.2
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