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
Keele University
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Malaria 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. Anophelines typically require relatively clean larval rearing water, and water management techniques that minimise toxic ammonia are key to achieving optimal rearing conditions in small and large rearing facilities. Zeolites are extensively used in closed-system fish aquaculture to improve water quality and reduce water consumption, thanks to 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 environmental friendliness. However, so far, their potential benefit for mosquito rearing has not been evaluated.
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 slurry 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, phenotypic quality and identification of optimal feeding regimes and larval density for the use of zeolite.
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 and shorter development time. At the lower larval rearing density, the 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 in smaller facilities. Zeolite could also offer cost-effective and environmental-friendly solutions for water recycling management systems in larger production facilities. Further studies are needed to optimise and assess the costs and benefits of such applications to Anopheles gambiae s.l. mosquito rearing programmes.
Keywords
Zeolite, Biological filtration, Chemical filtration, Mosquito mass rearing, Sterile insect technique SIT, Genetically-modified mosquitoes GMM, Release programmes, Sustainability, Water scarcity
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 water treatments.
- Additionalfile3TableS3.pdf
Additional file 3: Table S3: Mean wing-length of surviving adult An. coluzzii across water treatments.
- Additonalfile4TableS4.pdf
Additional file 4: Table S4: Mean development time of An. coluzzii across water treatments.
- GraphicalabstractRevised.png
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
Version 2
Posted 28 Jan, 2021
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
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
Keele University
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
Version 2
Posted 28 Jan, 2021
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
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
Malaria 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. Anophelines typically require relatively clean larval rearing water, and water management techniques that minimise toxic ammonia are key to achieving optimal rearing conditions in small and large rearing facilities. Zeolites are extensively used in closed-system fish aquaculture to improve water quality and reduce water consumption, thanks to 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 environmental friendliness. However, so far, their potential benefit for mosquito rearing has not been evaluated.
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 slurry 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, phenotypic quality and identification of optimal feeding regimes and larval density for the use of zeolite.
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 and shorter development time. At the lower larval rearing density, the 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 in smaller facilities. Zeolite could also offer cost-effective and environmental-friendly solutions for water recycling management systems in larger production facilities. Further studies are needed to optimise and assess the costs and benefits of such applications to Anopheles gambiae s.l. mosquito rearing programmes.
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 water treatments.
- Additionalfile3TableS3.pdf
Additional file 3: Table S3: Mean wing-length of surviving adult An. coluzzii across water treatments.
- Additonalfile4TableS4.pdf
Additional file 4: Table S4: Mean development time of An. coluzzii across water treatments.
- GraphicalabstractRevised.png
Loading...