Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:32:52.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INFLUENCES OF AQUATIC PLANTS ON COLONIZATION OF ARTIFICIAL PONDS BY MOSQUITOES AND THEIR INSECT PREDATORS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Nello P. D. Angerilli  and
Bryan P. Beirne
Nello P. D. Angerilli
Affiliation:
Pestology Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6
Bryan P. Beirne
Affiliation:
Pestology Centre, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aquatic plants Utricularia minor L., Lemna minor L., and Elodea canadensis Rich. in Michx. were tested for their effects on the colonization of artificial ponds by mosquitoes and their predators. During the 11 weeks of sampling there were significantly fewer mosquito eggs, and hence mosquito larvae, in the plant-filled ponds than in plantless control ponds, and more predators in the Utricularia and Elodea ponds than in the plantless and Lemna ponds.

Résumé

Les plantes aquatiques Utricularia minor L., Lemna minor L., et Elodea canadensis Rich. in Michx. ont été évaluées pour leurs effets sur la colonisation d’étangs artificiels par les moustiques et leurs prédateurs. Au cours des 11 semaines d’échantillonnage, les œufs de moustiques, et en conséquence les larves, étaient significativement moins abondants dans les étangs avec des plantes que dans les étangs témoins sans plantes, et les prédateurs étaient plus nombreux dans les étangs à Utricularia ou à Elodea que dans les étangs à Lemna ou les étangs sans plantes.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 112 , Issue 8 , 01 August 1980 , pp. 793 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1980

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

Bates, M. 1949. The Natural History of Mosquitoes. Macmillan, London. 378 pp.Google Scholar
Belton, P. 1967. The effect of illumination and pool brightness on oviposition by Culex restuans (Theo.) in the field. Mosquito News 27: 66–68.Google Scholar
Furlow, B. M. and Hays, K. L.. 1972. Some influences of aquatic vegetation on the species and number of Culicidae (Diptera) in small ponds of water. Mosquito News 32: 595–599.Google Scholar
Ikeshoji, T., Saito, K., and Yano, A.. 1975. Bacterial production of the ovipositional attractants for mosquitoes on fatty acid substrates. Appl. Ent. Zool. 10: 239–242.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. 1942. On water-finding and oviposition by captive mosquitoes. Bull. ent. Res. 32: 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, H. O. 1942. Studies on the choice of medium for oviposition by Anopheles quadrimaculatus. J. nat. Malar. Soc. 1: 101–111.Google Scholar
Snow, W. F. 1971. The spectral sensitivity of Aedes aegypti (L.) at oviposition. Bull. ent. Res. 60: 683–696.Google Scholar
Williams, R. E. 1962. Effect of colouring oviposition media with regard to the mosquito Aedes triseriatus (Say). J. Parasit. 48: 919–925.Google Scholar
Yap, H. H. 1975. Preliminary report on the colour preference for oviposition by Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in the field. SEast Asian J. trop. Med. Publ. Hlth 6: 451.Google Scholar