See the published version of this preprint at Parasites & Vectors.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Frederic Tripet
Centre for Applied Entomology and Parasitology, School of Life Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Vector control approaches that rely on mosquito releases such as the sterile insect technique (SIT) and suppression or replacement strategies relying on genetically modified mosquitoes (GMM) depend on effective mass production of Anopheles mosquitoes. For optimal development, Anophelines typically require relatively clean water which can be in short supply in some settings. Water replacement requires complex and onerous continuous-flow-systems and/or expensive water filtration systems like ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. Thus, there is a need for simple cost-effective water management and treatment solutions. Zeolites are additives that have been extensively applied in fish and crustacean aquaculture to improve water quality because of their selective adsorption of ammonia and toxic heavy metals. The many advantages of zeolites include low cost, abundance in many parts of the world and their environmental friendliness, but so far they have not been exploited for mosquito rearing.
Methods
This study evaluated the independent effects of zeolite and daily water changes (to simulate a continuous flow system) on the rearing of An. coluzzii under two feed regimes (powder or solution feed) and larval densities (200 and 400 larvae per tray). The duration of larval development, adult emergence success and phenotypic quality (body size) were recorded to assess the impact of water treatments on mosquito numbers and phenotypic quality and to identify the optimal feeding regimes and density for zeolite use.
Results
Overall, mosquito emergence, duration of development and adult phenotypic quality was significantly better in treatments with daily water changes. In treatments without daily water changes, zeolite significantly improved water quality at the lower larval rearing density, resulting in higher mosquito emergence. Duration of development was significantly longer in zeolite treatments. At the lower larval rearing density, adult phenotypic quality did not significantly differ between zeolite treatment without water changes and those with daily changes.
Conclusions
These results suggest that treating rearing water with zeolite can improve mosquito production under some conditions, and thus offer a cheaper alternative to more expensive techniques such as ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis, which are often part of continuous water change systems. Further studies are needed to optimize its uses for rearing Anopheles gambiae s.l.
Keywords
Zeolite, Water scarcity, Mass rearing, SIT, GMM
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Additionalfile1TableS1.pdf
Additional file 1: Table S1: Mean nitrates and ammonia values in larval trays.
- Additionalfile2TableS2.pdf
Additional file 2: Table S2: Mosquito survival at life history stages across treatments.
- Additionalfile3TableS3.pdf
Additional file 3: Table S3: Mean wing-length of surviving adult An. coluzzii across treatments.
- Additonalfile4TableS4.pdf
Additional file 4: Table S4: Mean development time of An. coluzzii across water treatments.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Parasites & Vectors.
Version (no preprint)
Posted 31 Mar, 2021
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 31 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Mar, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 29 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 23 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 23 Mar, 2021
This version was not preprinted
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 13 Feb, 2021
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 13 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 30 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 25 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 22 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 22 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jan, 2021
Version 1
Posted 26 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 11 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 06 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 24 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Oct, 2020
First submitted
On 16 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Oct, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Parasitology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Parasites & Vectors.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Frederic Tripet
Centre for Applied Entomology and Parasitology, School of Life Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Parasites & Vectors.
Version (no preprint)
Posted 31 Mar, 2021
Editorial decision: Minor Revision
On 31 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Mar, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 29 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 23 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 23 Mar, 2021
This version was not preprinted
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 13 Feb, 2021
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 13 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 30 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 27 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 25 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 25 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 22 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 22 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 22 Jan, 2021
Version 1
Posted 26 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 11 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 06 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 24 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 15 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 14 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Oct, 2020
First submitted
On 16 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Oct, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Parasitology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Parasites & Vectors.
Background
Vector control approaches that rely on mosquito releases such as the sterile insect technique (SIT) and suppression or replacement strategies relying on genetically modified mosquitoes (GMM) depend on effective mass production of Anopheles mosquitoes. For optimal development, Anophelines typically require relatively clean water which can be in short supply in some settings. Water replacement requires complex and onerous continuous-flow-systems and/or expensive water filtration systems like ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. Thus, there is a need for simple cost-effective water management and treatment solutions. Zeolites are additives that have been extensively applied in fish and crustacean aquaculture to improve water quality because of their selective adsorption of ammonia and toxic heavy metals. The many advantages of zeolites include low cost, abundance in many parts of the world and their environmental friendliness, but so far they have not been exploited for mosquito rearing.
Methods
This study evaluated the independent effects of zeolite and daily water changes (to simulate a continuous flow system) on the rearing of An. coluzzii under two feed regimes (powder or solution feed) and larval densities (200 and 400 larvae per tray). The duration of larval development, adult emergence success and phenotypic quality (body size) were recorded to assess the impact of water treatments on mosquito numbers and phenotypic quality and to identify the optimal feeding regimes and density for zeolite use.
Results
Overall, mosquito emergence, duration of development and adult phenotypic quality was significantly better in treatments with daily water changes. In treatments without daily water changes, zeolite significantly improved water quality at the lower larval rearing density, resulting in higher mosquito emergence. Duration of development was significantly longer in zeolite treatments. At the lower larval rearing density, adult phenotypic quality did not significantly differ between zeolite treatment without water changes and those with daily changes.
Conclusions
These results suggest that treating rearing water with zeolite can improve mosquito production under some conditions, and thus offer a cheaper alternative to more expensive techniques such as ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis, which are often part of continuous water change systems. Further studies are needed to optimize its uses for rearing Anopheles gambiae s.l.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Additionalfile1TableS1.pdf
Additional file 1: Table S1: Mean nitrates and ammonia values in larval trays.
- Additionalfile2TableS2.pdf
Additional file 2: Table S2: Mosquito survival at life history stages across treatments.
- Additionalfile3TableS3.pdf
Additional file 3: Table S3: Mean wing-length of surviving adult An. coluzzii across treatments.
- Additonalfile4TableS4.pdf
Additional file 4: Table S4: Mean development time of An. coluzzii across water treatments.
Loading...