Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T13:49:04.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRASPECIFIC COMPETITION IN ANOPHELES STEPHENSI (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE): II. THE EFFECTS OF MORE CROWDED DENSITIES AND THE ADDITION OF ANTIBIOTICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

William K. Reisen  and
Richard W. Emory
William K. Reisen
Affiliation:
International Health Program, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
Richard W. Emory
Affiliation:
International Health Program, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Anopheles stephensi Liston larvae were reared in food- and space-limited environments to which a mixture of penicillin G, chloramphenicol, and amphotericin B was added to suppress microbial populations. Under crowded conditions larvae took longer to develop, exhibited reduced survival, had an extended pupation period, and produced adults that were smaller. Under uncrowded conditions slightly more males than females emerged, whereas under crowded conditions proportionately fewer males than females emerged. Indirect evidence suggested that inhibitory compounds that slowed development and increased larval mortality were produced by crowded larvae. The addition of antibiotics did not suppress all microbial populations, but rather selected for resistant Pseudomonas-group bacteria which actually increased in number. The addition of antibiotics increased developmental rates at uncrowded, but not crowded densities, increased larval mortality, and increased the size of the emerging adults. Residual antibiotics increased development rates in a subsequent bioassay of the rearing media.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 109 , Issue 11 , November 1977 , pp. 1475 - 1480
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

Barbosa, P., Peters, T. M., and Greenough, N. C.. 1972. Overcrowding of mosquito populations: responses of larval Aedes aegypti to stress. Environ. Ent. 1: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Zeev, M. 1957. The effect of density on the larvae of the mosquito and its influence on fecundity. Bull. Res. Counc. Israel 6b: 220–228.Google Scholar
Dadd, R. H. and Kleinjahn, J. E.. 1974. Autophagostimulant from Culex pipiens larvae: distinction from other mosquito larval factors. Environ. Ent. 3: 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De St. Jeor, S. C. and Nielsen, L. T.. 1964. The use of antibiotics as an aid in rearing larvae of Culex tarsalis Coq. Mosquito News 24: 133–137.Google Scholar
Hickey, W. A. 1970. Factors influencing the distortion of sex ratio in Aedes aegypti. J. med. Ent. 7: 727–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ikeshoji, T. and Mulla, M. S.. 1970. Overcrowding factors of mosquito larvae. J. econ. Ent. 63: 90–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, W. L. 1960. The effects of crowding on the larvae of Aedes aegypti (L.) when reared under aseptic and non-septic conditions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State Univ., Columbus. 72 pp.Google Scholar
Kuno, G. and Moore, C. G.. 1975. Production of larval growth retardant in axenic cultures of Aedes aegypti. Mosquito News 35: 199–201.Google Scholar
Lal, R. 1953. Notes on the effect of temperature on the developmental stages of Anopheles subpictus Grassi and Anopheles stephensi Liston. Indian. J. Ent. 15: 97–106.Google Scholar
Moore, C. G. and Fisher, B. R.. 1969. Competition in mosquitoes. Density and species ratio effects on growth, mortality, fecundity and production of a growth retardant. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62: 1325–1331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, C. G. and Whitacre, D. M.. 1972. Competition in mosquitoes. 2. Production of Aedes aegypti larval growth retardant at various densities and nutritional levels. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 915–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisen, W. K. 1975 a. Intraspecific competition in Anopheles stephensi Liston. Mosquito News 35: 473–482.Google Scholar
Reisen, W. K. 1975 b. Effects of selected antibiotics on the larval development of Anopheles stephensi Liston (Diptera: Culicidae). Pakistan J. Zool. 7: 113–115.Google Scholar
Reisen, W. K. and Emory, R. W.. 1976. Cannibalism in Anopheles stephensi Liston. Mosquito News 36: 198–200.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J.. 1969. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif. 776 pp.Google Scholar
Terzian, L. A. and Stahler, N.. 1949. The effects of larval population density on some laboratory characteristics of Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say. J. Parasit. 35: 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wada, Y. 1965. Effect of larval density on the development of Aedes aegypti (L.) and the size of adults. Quaest. ent. 1: 223–249.Google Scholar
Wielding, K. 1929. Die Beeinflussung von Eiröhrenzahl und grösse einger Dipteran durch Hunger in Larvenstadium. Z. angew. Ent. 14: 69–85.Google Scholar