4.2 Article

Effects of temperature and larval diet on development rates and survival of the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in north Queensland, Australia

期刊

MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ENTOMOLOGY
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 31-37

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00207.x

关键词

Aedes aegypti; dengue vector; development time; environmental effects; larval diet; survival rate; temperature; thermal constant; wing-length; Queensland; Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immature development times, survival rates and adult size (wing-lengths) of the mosquito Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) were studied in the laboratory at temperatures of 10-40 degrees C. The duration of development from egg eclosion (hatching of the first instar) to adult was inversely related to temperature, ranging from 7.2 +/- 0.2 days at 35 degrees C to 39.7 +/- 2.3 days at 15 degrees C. The minimum temperature threshold for development (t) was determined as 8.3 +/- 3.6 degrees C and the thermal constant (K) was 181.2 +/- 36.1 day-degrees above the threshold. Maximum survival rates of 88-93% were obtained between 20 and 30 degrees C. Wing-length was inversely related to temperature. The sex ratio (female:male) was 1 : 1 at all temperatures tested (15, 20, 25 and 35 degrees C) except 30 degrees C (4 : 3). Under field conditions at Townsville and Charters Towers, north Queensland, the duration of immature development varied according to the container position (i.e. shaded or exposed) and the availability of food resources, as well as inversely with temperature. These data indicate that containers with an abundance of organic matter (e.g. those used for striking plant cuttings) or those amongst foliage or under trees (e.g. discarded plastic tubs and tyres) tended to produce the largest adult Ae. aegypti, which had faster development and better immature survival. As such progeny have been linked to a greater risk of dengue transmission, it would seem important to focus on control of such containers.

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