Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 25;12(4):279.
doi: 10.3390/insects12040279.

Different Hatching Rates of Floodwater Mosquitoes Aedes sticticus, Aedes rossicus and Aedes cinereus from Different Flooded Environments

Anders Lindström  1 , Disa Eklöf  1 , Tobias Lilja  1
Affiliations

Different Hatching Rates of Floodwater Mosquitoes Aedes sticticus, Aedes rossicus and Aedes cinereus from Different Flooded Environments

Anders Lindström et al. Insects. .

Abstract

In the lower Dalälven region, floodwater mosquitoes cause recurring problems. The main nuisance species is Aedes (Ochlerotatus) sticticus, but large numbers of Aedes (Aedes) rossicus and Aedes (Aedes) cinereus also hatch during flooding events. To increase understanding of which environments in the area give rise to mosquito nuisance, soil samples were taken from 20 locations from four environmental categories: grazed meadows, mowed meadows, unkept open grassland areas and forest areas. In each location 20 soil samples were taken, 10 from random locations and 10 from moisture retaining structures, such as tussocks, shrubs, piles of leaves, logs, and roots. The soil samples were soaked with tap water in the lab, and mosquito larvae were collected and allowed to develop to adult mosquitoes for species identification. Fewer larvae hatched from mowed areas and more larvae hatched from moisture retaining structure samples than random samples. The results showed that Aedes cinereus mostly hatch from grazed and unkept areas and hatched as much from random samples as from structures, whereas Aedes sticticus and Aedes rossicus hatched from open unkept and forest areas and hatch significantly more from structure samples. When the moisture retaining structures in open unkept areas where Aedes sticticus hatched were identified it was clear that they hatched predominantly from willow shrubs that offered shade. The results suggest that Ae. sticticus and Ae. cinereus favor different flooded environments for oviposition.

Keywords: Aedes cinereus; Aedes rossicus; Aedes sticticus; egg laying; floodwater mosquitoes; oviposition.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Map of the Lower Dalälven area with sample locations marked with diamonds 1–20. List of all locations in Table S2.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Mean number of mosquito larvae hatched per sample in random and moisture retaining structures (MRS) samples, sampled during spring and late summer. (b) Mean number of mosquito larvae per sample in the four environmental categories, random, and MRS samples.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Mean number of Ae. cinereus larvae hatched per sample in random and MRS samples from different environmental categories. (b) Mean number of Ae. rossicus larvae hatched per sample in random and MRS samples from different environmental categories. (c) Mean number of Ae. sticticus larvae hatched per sample in random and MRS samples from different environmental categories.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) Box plot of rising plate meter height measurements from different environmental categories. (b) Box plot of 1 square-meter height measurements from different environmental categories. (c) Mean percent of 1 square-meter covered by MRS in different environmental categories.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schäfer M., Lundström J., Petersson T. Comparison of mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) populations by wetland type and year in the lower River Dalälven region, Central Sweden. J. Vector Ecol. 2008;33:150–157. doi: 10.3376/1081-1710(2008)33[150:COMDCP]2.0.CO;2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Merdić E., Lovaković T. Population dynamic of Aedes vexans and Ochlerotatus sticticus in flooded areas of the River Drava in Osijek, Croatia. J. Am. Mosq. 2001;17:275–280. - PubMed
    1. Becker N., Bozhao X. Microbial control of mosquitoes in West Germany and the Hubei Province of the People’s Republic of China. Isr. J. Entomol. 1989;23:39–44.
    1. Schäfer M.L., Lundström J.O. Efficiency of Bti-based floodwater mosquito control in Sweden—Four examples. J. Eur. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2014;32:1–8.
    1. Gyldberg B., Stenmark M. In: Hävd av Nedre Dalälvens Älvängar–Ekonomiska och Ekologiska Möjligheter. Dalälven N., editor. Lead Nedre Dalalven; Gysinge, Sweden: 2015. Report.

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources