Impacts of Lysinibacillus sphaericus on mosquito larval community composition and larval competition between Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1957130/v1

Download PDF

Article

Impacts of Lysinibacillus sphaericus on mosquito larval community composition and larval competition between Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1957130/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Effectiveness of mosquito larvicide active ingredients (AI), such as Lysinibacillus sphaericus, varies between species. To examine how differential effectiveness of L. sphaericus influences larval community dynamics, we performed two experiments. We performed a field experiment in which containers were seeded with a standardized nutrient treatment, mosquitoes colonized the containers, and then containers received one of three L. sphaericus applications. We then performed competition assays between Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus in low nutrient environments using multiple interspecific ratios and the presence/absence of a low dose of L. sphaericus. Field results demonstrated elimination of Culex spp. from the treated containers while container breeding Aedes spp. proliferated across all treatments. Lysinibacillus sphaericus did not influence competition between Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus, and the L. sphaericus application eliminated Cx. pipiens in all treatment replicates while survival of Ae. albopictus was similar between treated and untreated containers across interspecific ratios. Lysinibacillus sphaericus is an effective AI for control of Culex spp. However, different AIs should be utilized in habitats containing non-Culex genera while a mix of AIs should be utilized where coexistence of multiple genera is expected or confirmed.

Biopesticide larvicide products are applied widely throughout the US to control nuisance and disease-transmitting mosquito vectors ^1,2. These larvicides, which vary in composition and concentration of their active ingredient (AI), are mostly derived from bacteria, are highly effective at controlling mosquito larval populations, and display minimal non-target effects on other aquatic insects and vertebrates ². The effectiveness of these products in the field depends on multiple factors including the conditions of the target environment and the bionomics of the target species. Recent interest in larvicide resistance as part of a broader pesticide resistance monitoring emphasis in the US has generated reports documenting variable mortality rates of different AIs among different species ³ and between different populations of the same species. In particular, larval mortality stemming from exposure to the AI Lysinibacillus sphaericus, varies considerably among mosquito species ². Notably, Culex pipiens [Linnaeus] mosquito larvae are very susceptible to L. sphaericus while container breeding Aedes spp. such as Aedes albopictus [Skuse] are less susceptible ^2,3. Variable efficacy of L. sphaericus among different species may interfere with visual assessments of a treatment’s effectiveness – if the detection of larval or pupal individuals is the primary means of assessing effectiveness, then operational “failures” of detecting larvae in a treated environment could be attributable to detecting species tolerant of the AI.

Research with adulticides shows that certain products can alter or reverse asymmetric competitive outcomes in larval communities ⁴; in some cases, single-species population reductions using pesticides can result in non-target species population expansions (most likely through the mechanism of competitive release) ⁵. There are fewer investigations of the effect of larvicides on community composition and interspecific interactions. In terms of Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus, many studies document a general dichotomy between these two species’ larval habitats: Cx. pipiens larvae are typically found in eutrophic bodies of water such as those in catch basins ^6–8 while Ae. albopictus larvae are typically found in smaller, often cryptic, water sources ^9,10. Nevertheless, spatiotemporal co-occurrence of each species in the same habitats does occur ¹¹, which has generated interest in the dynamics of interspecific competition between the two species. Prior experiments have examined competitive outcomes as functions of nutrient availability ^12–14 and temperature gradients ¹⁵, with asymmetric competitive advantages more commonly reported for Ae. albopictus.

Considering L. sphaericus products are widely used throughout the US for larval control in a variety of different habitats and sensitivity to this active ingredient varies widely among species, these treatments may alter the structure and dynamics of mosquito communities, especially in environments that receive sub-lethal concentrations or when product effectiveness wanes post-application. The objectives of our study were two-fold: 1) determine how varying concentrations of L. sphaericus alter mosquito larval community structure and assembly in treated semi-natural mesocosms, and 2) determine how sublethal concentrations of L. sphaericus alter interspecific interactions between Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus in laboratory competition assays. Our overall hypothesis was that L. sphaericus treatments alter the structure of larval communities in treated environments towards a greater proportional dominance of L. sphaericus tolerant container-breeding species such as Ae. albopictus, thereby providing a competitive advantage to these medically important vector species in the treated habitat.

Project 1: Mesocosm field experiments

Eight mosquito species colonized the mesocosms, including Ae. albopictus (n = 99), Aedes japonicus (n = 388), Aedes triseriatus (n = 196), Anopheles punctipennis (n = 13), Cx. pipiens (n = 1,896), Culex restuans (n = 151), Orthopodomyia signifera (n = 71), and Toxorhynchites rutilus septentrionalis (n = 7). Six species were found in each cluster across all treatment mesocosms, while Or. signifera pupae were not found in any of the Label Rate mesocosms and Tox. pupae were not found in any mesocosm in Cluster D; visual presence of Toxorhynchites larvae were documented in each cluster throughout the experiment. Toxorhynchites larval presence was first noted in Week 31 (~ August 5th ); Toxorhynchites colonization of all mesocosms in Clusters A and B was noted in Week 38 (~ September 20th ); the absence of pupae was noted with the presence of Toxorhynchites larvae in sampled mesocosms in Week 39 (~ September 27th ). Figure 1 visually confirms the general absence of collected pupae of any species after Week 39.

Table 1

Summary results of a Poisson-error distributed generalized linear mixed effects model comparing total pupal collections in replicate mesocosms by applied treatment and cluster ID as fixed effects and week of collection as a random effect. Bolded and italicized lines indicate a change in parameter directionality between analyses with and without *Culex* spp.
Variable		With Culex spp.				Without Culex spp.
Variable		Est.	Std. Error	z-value	Pr(>\|z\|)	Est.	Std. Error	z-value	Pr(>\|z\|)
Intercept		-2.25	0.80	-2.83	0.005	-4.74	0.93	-5.1	3.5e-7
Cluster (Reference A)	B	0.84	0.06	14.4	< 2e-16	1.93	0.14	13.7	< 2e-16
	C	0.50	0.06	8.16	3.5e-16	0.90	0.16	5.76	8.5e-9
	D	0.57	0.06	9.41	< 2e-16	1.19	0.15	7.89	3.0e-15
Treatment (Reference Untreated)	LC50	-0.99	0.05	-18.6	< 2e-16	0.56	0.08	6.73	1.7e-11
	LC95	-1.13	0.06	-20.2	< 2e-16	-0.98	0.13	-7.78	7.5e-15
	Label Rate	-0.74	0.05	-15.2	< 2e-16	-1.24	0.14	-8.90	< 2e-16
Random: Week		Var = 4.51, Std. Dev = 2.13				Var = 7.7, Std. Dev = 2.77
Random: Species		Var = 2.93, Std. Dev = 1.71				Var = 2.17, Std. Dev = 1.48

There were more total mosquitoes collected in the untreated mesocosms across all clusters compared to the three other treatment levels. This result was due to the high abundance of Cx. pipiens pupae collected in the pre-treatment period of the experiment (Fig. 1, Table 1). Accounting for the presence of Culex spp. mosquitoes, post-hoc comparisons determined that more mosquitoes were collected in cluster B compared to all other clusters while mosquito collections were similar between the LC50, LC95, and Label rate mesocosms (Table 1, S. Figure 1). When excluding Culex spp, mosquitoes from any analysis, more mosquitoes were found in the LC50 treated mesocosms compared to the untreated reference (Table 1, S. Figure 1). Overall, there was a clear colonization pattern among species, with Cx. pipiens and Cx. restuans initially colonizing all mesocosms followed by the container Aedes spp. (Fig. 1). For all mesocosms clusters, Culex egg rafts were observed during sample collections throughout the course of the experiment.

Table 2

Summary results of a binomial-error distributed generalized linear model comparing *Culex pipiens* mortality during a single or double treatment regimen of multiple *L. sphaericus* concentrations from bioassays of mesocosm water samples.
Variable		Single L. sphaericus Treatment				Double L. sphaericus Treatment
Variable		Est.	Std. Error	z-value	Pr(>\|z\|)	Est.	Std. Error	z-value	Pr(>\|z\|)
Intercept		-9.02	1.95	-4.62	3.8e-6	-8.03	1.76	-4.58	4.8e-6
Treatment (Reference Untreated)	LC50	2.95	1.32	2.24	0.03	2.43	1.14	2.13	0.033
	LC95	6.57	1.52	4.33	1.5e-5	5.69	1.35	4.20	2.7e-5
	Label	5.41	1.48	3.65	0.00026	6.28	1.64	3.82	0.00014
Treatment Period (Reference BEFORE)	DURING	6.69	1.64	4.08	4.6e-5	5.95	1.54	3.85	0.00012
	DURING	6.69	1.64	4.08	4.6e-5	4.36	1.42	3.08	0.0021
	AFTER	4.56	1.44	3.17	0.0015	3.98	1.55	2.57	0.01

Weekly mortality assays using mesocosm water and larvae from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station’s (CAES) Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus colonies confirmed three observations from the field experiment: 1) The LC95 and Label Rate applications of L. sphaericus remained effective at killing Cx. pipiens larvae throughout the duration of the experiment (Fig. 2), 2) the LC50 treatment showed less residual activity compared to the LC95 and Label Rate treatments (Table 2, Fig. 3), and 3) L. sphaericus exposure had little to no mortality effect on the development and survival of Ae. albopictus larvae (Figs. 2). Generated susceptibility curves for each species confirmed Ae. albopictus was tolerant of L. sphaericus (S. Figure 2).

Project 2: Laboratory competition assays

In experiment 1, we evaluated whether L. sphaericus applications could increase the survival of a non-target species (Ae. albopictus) by releasing them from competition from Cx. pipiens larvae. The LC25 application of L. sphaericus resulted in 100% mortality of all Cx. pipiens larvae and there was no effect of L. sphaericus on Ae. albopictus survival compared to the untreated containers. Additionally, the increased availability of nutrients to Ae. albopictus in the LC25 treated cups did not significantly increase survival to pupation compared to the untreated controls (Fig. 4). When only examining the untreated cups, Ae. albopictus survival was greater than Cx. pipiens across all replicate interspecific densities (Fig. 4). Additionally in the untreated cups, there were no significant differences in species-specific survival among the respective replicate interspecific densities (Table 3).

Table 3

Summary results of a binomial-error distributed generalized linear model comparing species-specific survival in untreated replicate containers from experiment 1. All containers were initiated with 120 mg of a 3:2 liver powder and baker’s yeast mixture. Experiment 1 consisted of the addition of 1 ITU *L. sphaericus* and 40 1st instar larvae
Variable		Culex pipiens				Aedes albopictus
Variable		Est.	Std. Error	z-value	Pr(>\|z\|)	Est.	Std. Error	z-value	Pr(>\|z\|)
Intercept		0.08	0.52	0.16	0.88	0.94	0.58	1.64	0.1
Interspecific Ratio (Reference 10/30)	20/20	-0.24	0.73	-0.33	0.74	-0.32	0.79	-0.4	0.69
	30/10	0.37	0.74	0.50	0.62	0.08	0.83	0.10	0.92
	40/0	-0.76	0.87	-0.87	0.38	0.38	1.00	0.38	0.70

In experiment 2, we assessed the combined impacts of nutrient depletion by Cx. pipiens larvae and L. sphaericus toxicity on Ae. albopictus colonization. When Culex pipiens larvae were allowed to develop and pupate and then the containers were treated with the L. sphaericus LC25 and Ae. albopictus were added, there was no effect of reduced nutrient availability and larvicide presence on Ae. albopictus survival to pupation (Condition: F = 2.9, p = 0.09; L. sphaericus treatment: F = 0.01, p = 0.92) (S. Figure 3). There were also no differences in survival to pupation between Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus nor among Cx. pipiens replicate densities (S. Figure 3).

Our combined results from semi-natural mesocosms, susceptibility curves, mortality assays, and competition assays confirm variable mortality rates in L. sphaericus exposed Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus larvae. Overall, LC95 and Label Rate treatments of L. sphaericus immediately removed Cx. pipiens and Cx. restuans from our treatment mesocosms; sustained removal of Cx. pipiens from developing in these environments is supported by our mortality assays showing long periods of the AI’s residual activity. Additionally, our field experiments demonstrate that Aedes spp. mosquitoes readily colonize habitats treated for Cx. pipiens larvae; mortality assays with Ae. albopictus larvae further support the ability of container Aedes spp. to successfully develop into adults despite the presence of L. sphaericus. We were unable to demonstrate evidence of larvicide-mediated competition between Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus. While Ae. albopictus development rates were greater than Cx. pipiens in the untreated replicates, there was no difference in Ae. albopictus development between treated and untreated containers; this was despite the total elimination of Cx. pipiens larvae in the treated replicates. In all, our results clearly demonstrate the utility of L. sphaericus for effective control of Cx. pipiens larvae. However, other product formulations and AIs should be used for control of container breeding Aedes spp.

Though our results provide a proof-of-principle analysis of differential mortality rates in L. sphaericus exposed Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus larvae, our field results were unable to control for all factors that influence community composition. For instance, changes in nutrient concentrations and availability, as well as predation, are factors that deserve attention. All replicates were initially seeded with the same amount of nutrients, and qualitatively, these containers initially resembled solutions used to bait CDC gravid traps: containers were visually murky and smelled eutrophic. However, since no additional nutrients were added throughout the experiment, the quality of the water in the mesocosm qualitatively changed to be clearer and there was a general absence of a smell. The overall change in habitat quality could have been an important explanatory variable in the transition from Culex spp. to Aedes spp. dominance in the untreated and LC50 containers after around 8 weeks; however, the presence of Culex egg rafts throughout the length of the experiment suggest the mesocosms were suitable oviposition sites regardless of the absence of pupae in later weeks. Prior research has also shown an inhibitory effect of Aedes spp. presence on Culex larval abundance in semi-natural experiments ¹⁶, indicating that colonization of our mesocosms by Aedes spp. further limited the development of Culex individuals in the untreated and LC50 treatment containers. Based on comparisons to the LC95 and Label Rate mesocosms, our treatments at most accelerated this community succession due to the toxicity of the treated environment to Culex spp. It is important to note that these observed changes in water quality were only noted during the experiment and follow up experiments should track changes in chemicals such as ammonia, nitrate, and phosphate, which are all indicators of nutrient richness ¹⁷. Future experiments should also consider the addition of nutrients at different intervals to better isolate the hypothesis that L. sphaericus drives changes in larval community structure.

An additional complication of our field experiment was the unexpected colonization of each container by larvae of the genus Toxorhynchites. Toxorhynchites is an important predator of container developing mosquito larvae, and previous experiments show that predation by Toxorhynchites can result in significant alterations of mosquito community composition ^18,19. The strength of Toxorhynchites predation effects on mosquito larval survival and development is the driving reason behind mass rearing and release programs of Toxorhynchites mosquitoes as a biological control tactic ^20,21. Because Toxorhynchites pupae were not detected in a single mesocosm until the 8th week of our experiment, our results confidently demonstrate that the application and continued residual activity of L. sphaericus was dominantly responsible for the absence of Cx. pipiens larval development in the post-treatment periods. Beyond this initial application phase, we cannot fully conclude that sublethal effects of L. sphaericus resulted in community composition changes. Like the consideration of nutrients, follow up experiments should include a Toxorhynchites removal treatment to better isolate the hypothesis that L. sphaericus drives changes in larval community structure.

Prior studies of interspecific competition between Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus on average report asymmetric outcomes in which Ae. albopictus is the dominant competitor ^12–15. Our results from Experiment 1 support these findings and show that Ae. albopictus development rates were greater than Cx. pipiens rates in the untreated replicates. The rebound in Cx. pipiens survival in the absence of Ae. albopictus in Experiment 2 provides further evidence of asymmetric competition between the two species. Nutrient availability, which in Experiment 2 was not based on the number of larvae initially seeded into the replicate as in Experiment 1, could explain differential survival of Cx. pipiens between Experiment 1 and 2; however, there was no difference in Cx. pipiens survival across the three nutrient levels in Experiment 2 suggesting the presence of Ae. albopictus was the dominant factor explaining reduced survival of Cx. pipiens in the untreated replicates in Experiment 1. Given the demonstrated specificity of L. sphaericus for control of Cx. pipiens, other AI should be considered in future studies of insecticide-mediated competition between these two important vector species.

Larvicides are an important part of any Integrated Vector Management tool kit. Our research shows that certain active ingredients, such as Lysinibacillus sphaericus (the AI of VectoLex), are effective in a limited number of species. We were able to demonstrate residual mortality of L. sphaericus in field and lab exposed Cx. pipiens mosquitoes while other mosquito species, mostly container breeding Aedes spp., were able to colonize and successfully develop in treated habitats. Target mosquito species and method of larvicide effectiveness evaluations should be strongly considered when planning an anti-vector intervention campaign.

Project 1: Mesocosm field experiments

Mesocosm experiments took place at Lockwood Farm located in Hamden, Connecticut. Individual mesocosms were composed of black 20L cylindrical plastic containers filled with 12 L tap water and seeded with 10 mg of a 3:2 ratio liver powder/ baker’s yeast mixture and 1g of grass hay. Drain-holes were drilled into the sides of each container 5mm from the 12L surface to allow flooding for Aedes spp. egg emergence and to allow overflow beyond this level due to precipitation. Four replicate mesocosm clusters were dispersed throughout the Lockwood Farm. Clusters contained 4 mesocosms spaced 3m apart in a 2x2 grid. We utilized four L. sphaericus treatment levels in each cluster: no L. sphaericus, the LC50 (0.053 ITU/ml) and LC95 (1.0 ITU/ml) for Culex pipiens derived from Burtis et al. 2021, and the label rate of L. sphaericus (~ 1.2 ITU/ml). All treatments were derived from VectoLex WDG. Prior to insecticide application, we prepared 1L of a 1000 ITU/ml stock solution for each insecticide. To inoculate the mesocosms, we measured the depth of the container’s water column, calculated water volume, and applied the appropriate amount of stock to achieve the target LC value. Replicate insecticide treatments were randomized within each cluster, and insecticides were applied 30-days post mesocosm seeding with nutrients. All mesocosms in each cluster were rotated within the 2x2 grid each week. Two clusters were then randomly chosen for a second application of L. sphaericus 30-days post initial insecticide application.

To sample the larval habitat of each mesocosms, we performed a figure-8 sweep with an aquarium fish net (4 x 3-inch opening, Penn-Plax) each Monday and Thursday of the week for each week of the experiment. Sweep contents were washed from the net into a white photo development pan, and pupae were removed for in-lab identification after eclosion following a dichotomous key ²². All larvae were then returned to the mesocosm. This sampling protocol minimized destruction of larval habitats and influence of interspecific interactions due to removal sampling.

In addition to sampling containers for pupae, we collected water samples from each container for an in-lab bioassay to determine the realized mortality of the larval environment. Due to time constraints of the field crew, a 50% randomized sample of containers were sampled on Monday with the remaining 50% sampled on Thursday of each sampling week. Bioassay procedures followed McMillan et al. 2021 ²³ for Cx. pipiens with the addition of screening mortality in CAES’ Ae. albopictus colonies. We finally performed in-lab susceptibility trials to L. sphaericus with larvae from CAES’ Cx. pipiens and Ae. albopictus colonies to confirm each species’ colony varied in their sensitivity to the product. Briefly, 15 3rd to 4th instar larvae of each species per replicate dose were exposed to a wide range of L. sphaericus concentrations and mortality was recorded 24-hours post-exposure. Lethal concentrations were then estimated from a generalized linear model with mortality (corrected for mortality in untreated control replicates) as the response term and the log₁₀-dose as the predictor term.

Primary endpoints from the field experiment included the number and species identity of pupae collected from each mesocosm. We compared total weekly pupal collections per mesocosm using generalized linear mixed model framework with treatment level and cluster ID as fixed effects, species ID and week of collection as a random effect, and a Poisson-error distribution. We repeated this analysis excluding all collected Culex spp. to examine how the L. sphaericus treatments impacted the more tolerant Aedes spp. The primary endpoint for the mortality assays was the corrected larval mortality. We initially compared mortality using a species-specific GLMM with L. sphaericus treatment concentration and treatment period as fixed effects, week of collection as a random effect, and a binomial-error distribution. Preliminary analyses revealed negligible variance attributed to week of collection, so all subsequent models were a GLM. All analyses were performed in R V4.1.3 ²⁴ using the following packages: tidyverse ²⁵, gridExtra ²⁶, ggplot2 ²⁷, ggeffects ²⁸, and glmmTMB ²⁹.

Project 2: Laboratory competition assays

Competition assays took place at CAES’ main facility in New Haven, CT. This facility contains an Ae. albopictus colony (founded circa 2014 from Stratford, CT) and a Cx. pipiens colony (founded circa 2018 from New Haven, CT;). Colony maintenance for each species was similar: larval rearing pans consisted of approx. 200 eggs (on papers, Ae. albopictus, or as egg rafts, Cx. pipiens) in ~ 2L RO water and initiated with ~ 20ml of a 1% 3:2 liver powder/brewers yeast slurry. Pans were held at 25.5°C and 80% humidity and fed ~ 20ml of the 1% slurry every other day. Pupae were removed to an eclosion chamber and adults were allowed access to 10% sucrose solution ad libitum. Aedes albopictus females were given access to defibrinated sheep’s blood through a Hemotek membrane feeder for 1 hour every 2–3 weeks and moistened, fluted filter paper was provided to collect eggs. Culex pipiens females were given access to a live, restrained buttonquail overnight once per week and a small cup seeded with 5ml 1% slurry and 15 RO ml water was provided to collect egg rafts. The use of button quail was reviewed and approved in accordance with The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

We performed two experiments. All experiments consisted of the following treatments: variable ratios of Ae:Cx larvae and two L. sphaericus treatments (no treatment and 0.01 ITU/ml). Larval density (40 per container) remained constant across all replicate treatments, but Ae:Cx ratios varied from 40/0, 30/10, 20/20, 10/30, and 0/40. Nutrients supplied were a low concentration (3mg larva^-1) of a 3:2 liver powder/baker’s yeast mix applied at the beginning of the experiment. Temperature was held constant at the colony maintenance level. Assays took place in 300ml disposable plastic cups filled with 100ml of distilled water. The first experiments consisted of the addition of the 40 larvae as newly hatched individuals (+/- 1 day between species’ hatch) at the appropriate ratios, the larval diet, and the 0.01 ITU/ml concentration (diluted from a lab stock of 1000 ITU/ml). Assays were monitored daily until all larvae were dead and/or all larvae pupated. Experiment 2 consisted of the addition of only the Cx. pipiens larvae and the larval diet. After all Cx. pipiens had pupated, containers were treated with L. sphaericus and then the Ae. Albopictus larvae were added.

Primary endpoints included the species-specific pupation success which was analyzed as the response term in a generalized linear model with treatment and initial starting conditions included as fixed effects. All analyses were performed in R V4.1.3 ²⁴ using the following packages: tidyverse ²⁵, gridExtra ²⁶, and ggplot2 ²⁷.

Acknowledgements: All authors would like to thank the following for their help with field collections and running the mortality assays: Talia Barry, Joseph Battaglia, Catherine Goncalves, and Hannah Sproch.

Author contributions: JRM, JJS, TP, and PMA conceived of the study; JRM and MO performed the field experiments; JRM, MO, JJS, and TP performed the competition experiments; JRM performed the statistical analysis and prepared the manuscript first draft; all authors contributed to manuscript development and approved the submitted manuscript.

Data availability: All raw data is included for internal review. If accepted for publication, all data will be freely available as supporting information attached to the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest: None

Funding: This publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number U01CK000509, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Department of Health and Human Services. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Regis, L., Silva-Filha, M. H., Nielsen-LeRoux, C. & Charles, J. F. Bacteriological larvicides of dipteran disease vectors. Trends Parasitol 17, 377–380, doi:10.1016/s1471-4922(01)01953-5 (2001).
Lacey, L. A. Bacillus thuringiensis serovariety israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus for mosquito control. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 23, 133–163, doi:10.2987/8756-971x(2007)23[133:Btsiab]2.0.Co;2 (2007).
Burtis, J. C. et al. NEVBD Pesticide Resistance Monitoring Network: Establishing a Centralized Network to Increase Regional Capacity for Pesticide Resistance Detection and Monitoring. J Med Entomol 58, 787–797, doi:10.1093/jme/tjaa236 (2021).
Alto, B. W., Lampman, R. L., Kesavaraju, B. & Muturi, E. J. Pesticide-induced release from competition among competing Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 50, 1240–1249, doi:10.1603/me12135 (2013).
Qureshi, A. & Connolly, J. B. A systematic review assessing the potential for release of vector species from competition following insecticide-based population suppression of Anopheles species in Africa. Parasit Vectors 14, 462, doi:10.1186/s13071-021-04975-0 (2021).
Geery, P. R. & Holub, R. E. Seasonal abundance and control of Culex spp. in catch basins in Illinois. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 5, 537–540 (1989).
Su, T., Webb, J. P., Meyer, R. P. & Mulla, M. S. Spatial and temporal distribution of mosquitoes in underground storm drain systems in Orange County, California. J Vector Ecol 28, 79–89 (2003).
Vazquez-Prokopec, G. M. et al. The risk of West Nile Virus infection is associated with combined sewer overflow streams in urban Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Environ Health Perspect 118, 1382–1388, doi:10.1289/ehp.1001939 (2010).
Unlu, I., Farajollahi, A., Strickman, D. & Fonseca, D. M. Crouching tiger, hidden trouble: urban sources of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) refractory to source-reduction. PloS one 8, e77999, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077999 (2013).
Unlu, I., Faraji, A., Indelicato, N. & Fonseca, D. M. The hidden world of Asian tiger mosquitoes: immature Aedes albopictus (Skuse) dominate in rainwater corrugated extension spouts. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 108, 699–705, doi:10.1093/trstmh/tru139 (2014).
Reiskind, M. H. & Hopperstad, K. A. Surveillance for Immature Mosquitoes in Windshield Wash Basins at Gas Stations. J Med Entomol 54, 1775–1777, doi:10.1093/jme/tjx129 (2017).
Costanzo, K. S., Mormann, K. & Juliano, S. A. Asymmetrical competition and patterns of abundance of Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 42, 559–570, doi:10.1093/jmedent/42.4.559 (2005).
Costanzo, K. S., Muturi, E. J., Lampman, R. L. & Alto, B. W. The effects of resource type and ratio on competition with Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens (Diptera:Culicidae). J Med Entomol 48, 29–38, doi:10.1603/me10085 (2011).
Muller, R. et al. Larval superiority of Culex pipiens to Aedes albopictus in a replacement series experiment: prospects for coexistence in Germany. Parasit Vectors 11, 80, doi:10.1186/s13071-018-2665-3 (2018).
Marini, G. et al. The effect of interspecific competition on the temporal dynamics of Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens. Parasit Vectors 10, 102, doi:10.1186/s13071-017-2041-8 (2017).
Murrell, E. G. & Juliano, S. A. Predation resistance does not trade off with competitive ability in early-colonizing mosquitoes. Oecologia 173, 1033–1042, doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2674-z (2013).
Lund, A. et al. Long term impacts of combined sewer overflow remediation on water quality and population dynamics of Culex quinquefasciatus, the main urban West Nile virus vector in Atlanta, GA. Environ Res 129, 20–26, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2013.12.008 (2014).
Ellis, A. M., Lounibos, L. P. & Holyoak, M. Evaluating the long-term metacommunity dynamics of tree hole mosquitoes. Ecology 87, 2582–2590 (2006).
Paradise, C. J. et al. Local and regional factors influence the structure of treehole metacommunities. BMC Ecol 8, 22, doi:10.1186/1472-6785-8-22 (2008).
Donald, C. L., Siriyasatien, P. & Kohl, A. Toxorhynchites Species: A Review of Current Knowledge. Insects 11, doi:10.3390/insects11110747 (2020).
Vinogradov, D. D., Sinev, A. Y. & Tiunov, A. V. Predators as Control Agents of Mosquito Larvae in Micro-Reservoirs (Review). Inland Water Biol 15, 39–53, doi:10.1134/S1995082922010138 (2022).
Andreadis, T. G., Thomas, M. C. & Shepard, J. J. Identification guide to the mosquitoes of Connecticut. Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 996, 178 (2005).
McMillan, J. R. et al. The community-wide effectiveness of municipal larval control programs for West Nile virus risk reduction in Connecticut, USA. Pest Manag Sci 77, 5186–5201, doi:10.1002/ps.6559 (2021).
R Development Core Team, R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing., (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008).
Wickham, H. The tidyverse. R package ver 1, 1 (2017).
Auguie, B., Antonov, A. & Auguie, M. B. Package ‘gridExtra’. Miscellaneous Functions for “Grid” Graphics (2017).
Wickham, H., Chang, W. & Wickham, M. H. Package ‘ggplot2’. Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. Version 2, 1–189 (2016).
Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software 3, 772 (2018).
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R journal 9, 378–400 (2017).

No competing interests reported.

McMillanSciRepssuppinfo.docx

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revision
12 Sep, 2022
Reviews received at journal
05 Sep, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
25 Aug, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
25 Aug, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
25 Aug, 2022
Editor invited by journal
17 Aug, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
17 Aug, 2022
First submitted to journal
12 Aug, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Impacts of Lysinibacillus sphaericus on mosquito larval community composition and larval competition between Culex pipiens and Aedes albopictus

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Results

Project 1: Mesocosm field experiments

Project 2: Laboratory competition assays

Discussion

Conclusion

Methods

Project 1: Mesocosm field experiments

Project 2: Laboratory competition assays

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1