Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:37:36.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reactions of Mosquitoes to Temperature and Humidity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. C. Muirhead Thomson
R. C. Muirhead Thomson
Affiliation:
Dept. of Entomology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Reactions to Temperature

1. The reactions of Culex fatigans to temperature were studied by means of a new type of temperature gradient apparatus based on the same principle as the humidity alternative chamber.

2. Females at different stages were exposed to a range of 5°C. at different parts of the temperature scale, and it was found that the sensitivity was very much greater at high temperatures than at low ones.

3. The most striking feature of behaviour at all stages was the strong avoidance of high temperatures. This was strongest in the hungry females, less strong in the blood-fed females and those with mature ovaries, and least strong in the newly emerged females.

4. Newly emerged females showed avoidance of high temperature below 30°C., but not below 25°C. They also showed a weak avoidance of low temperature. At 29°C. they were sensitive to a difference of 1°C. or a gradient of 0·05°C. per cm.

5. Hungry females showed a strong avoidance of high temperature below 25°C., the reaction still taking place below 15°C. There was no avoidance of low temperatures.

6. Blood-fed females and those with mature ovaries showed a strong avoidance of high temperatures below 25°C., but below 20°C. they were unaffected by temperature differences. Blood-fed females were sensitive to a difference of 1°C. or a gradient of 0·05°C. per cm. at 23°C.

7. Except in the case of newly emerged females there was quite a close relation between the reactions to temperature and the effects of temperature.

8. Reasons are given for regarding the temperature reactions of Culex as of first importance in determining the behaviour of the mosquitoes when seeking a resting place.

Reactions to Humidity

9. The reactions of Culex fatigans to humidity were studied by means of the alternative chamber, in a dark constant temperature room at 25°C.

10. At all stages the strongest humidity reaction was an avoidance of high humidities above 95 per cent. R.H.

11. This reaction was strongest in the blood-fed females and those with mature ovaries, less strong in the newly emerged females, and weakest in the hungry females.

12. The avoidance of high humidity was strongest when there was a difference of 20 per cent. R.H., such as a 78–98 per cent. R.H. gradient. Near saturation point all stages except hungry females were sensitive to a difference of 1 per cent. R.H. or a gradient of ·05 per cent. R.H. per cm. Hungry females at this point were not sensitive to a difference of less than 3 per cent. R.H.

13. All stages showed a slight but regular avoidance of low humidities, provided a sufficiently large humidity range, not less than 40 per cent. R.H., was present.

14. Hungry females, despite the onset of mortality due to desiccation, showed no sharp avoidance of low humidities which were rapidly fatal to them.

15. Between 30 and 85 per cent. R.H. all stages were unaffected by humidity differences of as much as 40 per cent. R.H.

16. The avoidance of high humidities was equally strong in blood-fed females at 20, 25, and 30°C. At 35°C., greatly increased activity eliminated the reaction.

17. The reaction was much less intense in daylight and disappeared altogether after sundown.

18. Reasons are given for considering that the measure of humidity which determines the behaviour of the mosquito is relative humidity and not saturation deficiency, even though the latter is the important one in the water relations of insects.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , July 1938 , pp. 125 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buxton, P. A. (1932). Biol. Rev. 7, pp. 275–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Mellanby, K. (1934). Bull. Ent. Res. 25, pp. 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophers, S. R., Sinton, J. A., & Covell, G. (1936). How to do a Malaria Survey.—viii, 206 pp. Delhi.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, G. (1931). Biol. Rev. 6, pp. 37–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, V. (1887). Pflüg. Arch. ges. Physiol. 41, pp. 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L. (1934). Z. vergl. Physiol. 20, pp. 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L. (1937). J. Exp. Biol. 14, pp. 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L. & Kennedy, J. S. (1936). J. Exp. Biol. 13, pp. 450–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herter, K. (1924). Z. vergl. Physiol. 1, pp. 221–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, H. S. (1906). The Behaviour of the Lower Organisms. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, A. (1919). Die Orientierung der Tiere im Raum. Jena.Google Scholar
Landolt, Bornstein. (1923). Physikalische Chemische Tabellen. Berlin.Google Scholar
Martini, E. & Taubner, E. (1933). Arch. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 37, pp. 1–80.Google Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1934). J. Exp. Biol. 11, pp. 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Necheles, H. (1925). Arch. Schiffs-u. Tropenhyg. 29, pp. 288–291.Google Scholar
Nieschultz, O. (1933). Zool. Anz. 103, pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
Senior White, R. (1934). Bull. Ent. Res. 25, pp. 551–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vishwa, Nath. (1924). Quart. J. Micr. Sci. 69, pp. 151–176.Google Scholar