Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:57:58.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the life history components of Aedes aegypti (L.) and Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

F. K. Kasule
F. K. Kasule
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Get access

Abstract

Life history components, especially those of the adult stage, were investigated in Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus in the laboratory. Males of Cx. quinquefasciatus had a greater expectation of life at adult eclosion than males of Ae. aegypti. There was no statistically significant difference in the means of life expectancy for females of Ae. aegypti versus those of Cx. quinquefasciatus. In both species, males had a shorter life than females. The two species exhibited considerable heterogeneity for reproductive characters. Females reproducing for the first time were younger in Cx. quinquefasciatus than in Ae. aegypti. Net reproductive rate and the per capita rate of increase were greater in the former than in the latter species. Cx. quinquefasciatus had a shorter generation time than Ae. aegypti. The data reported here are inconsistent to varying degrees when compared with data gathered by other workers from the same species. The results are discussed with reference to the theoretical constructs of the life history theory.

Résumé

Les phases de l'histoire de la vie, spećialement cells du stade actulté, étaient analysées au laboratoire chez Aedes aegypti et Culex quinquefasciatus. Les mâles de C. quinquefasciatus avaient une ésperance de vie plus élevée lors de l'éclosion à l'etat adulte que les mâles de A. aegypti. Il n'y avait pas de différence statistique significative dans les moyennes de espérances de vie pour les femelles de A. aegypti comparés à ceux de C. quinquefasciatus. Chez les 2 espèces, les mâles avaient une vie plus courte que celle des femelles. Les deux espèces montraient une heterogenéité considerable dans leurs charactères reproductifs. Les femelles se reproduisant pour la première fois étaient plus jeunes chez C. quinquefasciatus que chez A. aegypti. Le taux de reproduction net et le taux de croissance par tête étaient plus grands chez ceux-ci que chez de génération plus courte que celle de A. aegypti. Les valeurs rapportées ici sont inconsistantes à degrés divers compareés à celles collecteés pa d'autres chercheurs à partir des mêmes éspeces. Les resultats sont discutés en se référant aux considérations théorigues de l'étude des phases de la vie.

Keywords

Life history componentsreproductive adaptationsAedes aegyptiCulex quinquefasciatusLes phases de l'histoire de la vieadaptations reproductives Aedes aegyptiCulex quinquefasciatus
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 143 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1986

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

REFERENCES

Barbosa, P. and Peters, T. M. (1973) Some effects of overcrowding on the respiration of larval Aedes aegypti. Entomologia exp. appl. 16, 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christophers, S. R. (1960) Aedes aegypti L: The Yellow Fever Mosquito, its Life, History, Bionomics and Structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, G. B. (1967) Mosquitoes: female monogamy produced by male accessory gland substance. Science 156, 1499–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crovello, T. J. and Hacker, C. S. (1972) Evolutionary strategies in life table characteristics among feral and urban strains of Aedes aegypti (L.). Evolution 26, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobshansky, T., Lewontin, R. and Pavlovsky, O. (1964) The capacity for increase in chromosomally polymorphic and monomorphic populations of Drosophila pseudoobsura. Heredity 19, 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, D. and Carpenter, S. R. (1982) Leaf litter and larval mosquito dynamics in tree-hole ecosystems. Ecology 63, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadgil, M. and Bossert, W. H. (1970) Life historical consequences of natural selection. Am. Nat. 104, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillet, J. D. (1971) Mosquitoes. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
Gomez, C., Robinovich, J. E. and Machado-Allison, C. E. (1977) Population analysis of Culex pipiens fatigans Wied. (Diptera, Culicidae) under laboratory conditions. J. med. Ent. 13, 453–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, L. A. (1967) On the reconciliation of mathematical theories of population growth. J. R. statist. Soc. A 130, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikeshoji, T. and Mulla, M. S. (1970a) Overcrowding factors of mosquito larvae. J. econ. Ent. 63, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ikeshoji, T. and Mulla, M. S. (1970b) Overcrowding factors of mosquito larvae. 2. Growth-retarding and bacte-riostatic effects of overcrowding factors of mosquito larvae. J. econ. Ent. 63, 1737–1743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, P. H. (1966) The intrinsic rate of increase and overlap of successive generations in a population of guillemots (Uria alge Pont.). J. Anim. Ecol. 35, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1979) Fitness, survival and optimality. In Analysis of Ecological Systems (Edited by Horn, D. J., Stairs, G. R. and Mitchel, R. D.). Ohio State University Press, Columbia, Ohio.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. G. (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
Moore, C. G. and Whetacre, D. M. (1972) Competition in mosquitoes 2. Production of Aedes aegypti larval growth retardant at various densities and nutrition levels. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65, 915–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pianka, E. R. (1970) On r− and K-selection. Am. Nat. 104, 592–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisen, W. K. (1975) Intraspecific competition in Anopheles stephensi Liston. Mosquito News 35, 473–182.Google Scholar
Schlosser, I. J. and Buffington, J. D. (1977) The energetics of r− vs K-selection in two African strains of Aedes aegypti. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 10, 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E., Murdie, G., Yasud, M., Tonn, R. J. and Reader, P. M. (1972) Studies on the life budget of Aedes aegypti in Wat Samphaya, Bangkok, Thailand. Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 46, 211–216.Google ScholarPubMed
Subra, R. (1981) Biology and control of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Say 1823. Insect Sci. Applic. 1, 319–338.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971 (Edited by Campbell, B.). Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Walter, N. M. and Hacker, C. S. (1974) Variation in life table characteristics among strains of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus. J. med. Ent. 11, 541–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed