Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:35:56.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the natural predators of Culex pipiens L. and C. torrentium Martini (Diptera: Culicidae) in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. O. A. Onyeka
J. O. A. Onyeka
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Applied Entomology, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The natural predators of Culex pipiens L. and C. torrentium Mart, in artificial containers and ponds were studied in southern England, using serological techniques. The antisera were from rabbits immunised by injections of saline extracts of the species of Culex into the inguinal lymph nodes and made relatively more specific by absorption. The gut contents or whole individuals of 1098 potential predators were smeared on to filter paper and tested. The most important predators in the ponds were Odonata nymphs while those of artificial containers were larval Dytiscidae. Diptera and Araneae preyed on emerging adults. The length of time a mosquito meal remained detectable in the gut of predators varied from a minimum of 8 h for the newt Triturus vulgaris to 24 h for the zygopteran Ischnura elegans (van der Linden). The results of laboratory tests indicated that the anisopteran Sympetrum striolatum (Charp.) was potentially more important as a biological control agent for larval culicines in ponds than the zygopteran Coenagrion puella (L.).

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 185 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Boreham, P. F. L.. (1975). Some applications of bloodmeal identification in relation to the epidemiology of vector-borne tropical diseases.—J. trap. Med. Hyg. 78, 83–91.Google Scholar
Boreham, P. F. L.. (1979). Recent developments in serological methods for predator-prey studies.—Misc. Publs ent. Soc. Am. 11, 17–23.Google Scholar
Boreham, P. F. L.Gill, G. S.. (1973). Serological identification of reptile feeds of Glossina.—Acta trop. 30, 356–365.Google ScholarPubMed
Boreham, P. F. L.Ohiagu, C. E.. (1978). The use of serology in evaluating invertebrate prey-predator relationships: a review.—Bull. ent. Res. 68, 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke, M. M.Proske, H. O.. (1946). Precipitin test for determining natural insect predators of immature mosquitoes.J. natn. Malar. Soc. 5, 45–56.Google Scholar
Corbet, P. S.. (1962). A biology of dragonflies.—247 pp. London, Witherby.Google Scholar
Dempster, J. P.. (1960). A quantitative study of the predators on the egg and larvae of the broom beetle, Phytodecta olivacea Forster, using the precipitin test.—J. Anim. Ecol. 29, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, H. P.. (1978). The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems.—237 pp. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Holling, C. S.. (1959 a). The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly.—Can. Ent. 91, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S.. (1959 b). Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism.—Can. Ent. 91,385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N.. (1953). Observations on the feeding habits of a predaceous mosquito larva, Culex (Lutzia) tigripes Grandpré and Charmoy (Diptera). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 28, 153–159.Google Scholar
James, H. G.. (1965). Predators of Aedes atropatpus (Coq.) (Diptera: Culicidae) and of other mosquitoes breeding in rock pools in Ontario.—Can. J. Zool. 43, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, M.. (1947). Some natural enemies of mosquitoes in the vicinity of Palmalmal, New Britain.—Trans. R. Soc. N. Z. 76, 453—476.Google Scholar
Laurell, C. B.. (1965). Antigen-antibody crossed electrophoresis.—Analyt. Biochem. 10, 417–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muspratt, J.. (1951). The bionomics of an African Megarhinus (Dipt., Culicidae) and its possible use in biological control.—Bull. ent. Res. 42, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, F. R. S.. (1977). Predation on mosquito larvae by beetle larvae, Hydrophilus triangularis and Dytiscus marginalis.—Mosquito News 37, 628–630.Google Scholar
Notestine, M. K.. (1971). Population densities of known invertebrate predators of mosquito larvae in Utah marshlands.—Mosquito News 31, 331–334.Google Scholar
Onyeka, J. O. A.. (1980). Studies on the ecology and biology of Culex pipiens L. and Culex torrentium Martini (Diptera: Culicidae) in Britain.—329 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. London.Google Scholar
Ouchterlony, O.. (1948). In vitro method for testing the toxin producing capacity of diphtheria bacteria.—Ada path, microbiol. scand. 25, 186–191.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, D. R.Smith, L. W. Jr.Enns, W. R.. (1967). Laboratory observations on predation activities of Laccophilus beetles on the immature stages of some dipterous pests found in Missouri oxidation lagoons.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60, 908–910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, D.. (1972). Random search and insect population models.—J. Anim. Ecol. 41, 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sailer, R. I.Lienk, S. E.. (1954). Insect predators of mosquito larvae and pupae in Alaska.—Mosquito News 14, 14–16.Google Scholar
Service, M. W.. (1968). The taxonomy and biology of two sympatric sibling species of Culex, C. pipiens and C. torrentium (Diptera: Culicidae).—J. Zool. 156, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, M. W.. (1970). Studies on the biology and taxonomy of Aedes (Stegomyia) vittatus (Bigot)(Diptera: Culicidae) in Northern Nigeria. —Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 122, 101–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, M. W..(1971). Studies on sampling larval populations of the Anopheles gambiae complex.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 45, 169–180.Google ScholarPubMed
Service, M. W..(1973 a). Mortalities of the larvae of the Anopheles gambiae Giles complex and detection of predators by the precipitin test.—Bull. ent. Res. 62, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, M. W..(1973 b). Identification of predators of Anopheles gambiae resting in huts, by the precipitin test.–Trans. R. Soc. trap. Med. Hyg. 67, 33–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Service, M. W..(1973 c). Study of the natural predators of Aedes cantans (Meigen) using the precipitin test.—J. med. Entomol. 10, 503–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Service, M. W.. (1976). Mosquito ecology: field sampling methods.—583 pp. London, Applied Sciences Publishers.Google Scholar
Service, M. W.. (1977). Ecological and biological studies on Aedes cantans (Meig.) (Diptera: Culicidae) in southern England.—J. appl. Ecol. 14, 159–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. J.. (1978). Towards a realistic predator-prey model: the effect of temperature on the functional response and life history of larvae of the damselfly, Ischnura elegans.—J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titova, E. V.. (1970). Use of the precipitin test in a study of interrelationships between Eurygaster integriceps Put. (Heteroptera, Scutelleridae) and predatory arthropods.—Ent. Rev., Wash. 49,155–162.Google Scholar
Weitz, B.. (1952). The antigenicity of sera of man and animals in relation to the preparation of specific precipitin antisera.—J. Hyg., Camb. 50, 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz, B.. (1957). An automatic dispenser for multiple serological titrations.—J. clin. Path. 10,200&207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed