Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:44:45.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the Behaviour of Culicine Mosquitos in African Huts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

John Phipps
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Observations on the behaviour of Culex pipiens fatigans Wied. were made in 24 huts built and occupied by Africans on a sisal estate near Tanga, Tanganyika Territory. Catches were made in four huts each day, an exit trap being fixed on the window from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. (evening trap) and replaced by another from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. next day (morning trap), when a spray catch was made of the mosquitos still in the hut. Each hut was used only once a week, for 31 weeks, from December 1952 to July 1953. The females caught were sorted according to the stage of the gonotrophic cycle, as judged by external examination. The stages used were: I, no blood, no visible ovaries; II, stomach full of blood, ovaries small; V, little or no blood, ovaries fully developed; III and IV, intermediate between II and V.

An analysis of variance was performed on the results. Catches of both sexes showed a significant variation with time, which was not, however, correlated with rainfall. Significantly different numbers were taken in the traps and in the huts. Females were significantly most numerous in the hut catch, and males in the morning trap, the former result suggesting that most females spend more than one day in a hut. There were significant differences between the numbers of females in the different stages of the gonotrophic cycle, stages I and II together accounting for 80 per cent, of all females caught. The high proportion of stage I is attributed to delay between emergence and feeding, and of stage II to the taking of more than one meal during the gonotrophic cycle, later meals obscuring the state of ovarian development. There were significant differences between huts as regards the numbers of females caught, but not as regards males, and it is concluded that this is due to variations in the attractiveness of the inhabitants of the huts.

Females in stage I were most numerous in the morning trap, those in stages II–IV were taken only rarely in traps, but there was no significant difference between numbers of stage V caught in huts and in the two window traps. These results arse attributed to restlessness in both hungry and gravid females, and sluggishness in fed ones. All stages except III were significantly more numerous in some weeks than in others and this might be due to variations in either rate of reproduction, or rate of loss of mosquitos from huts. There were significant variations in behaviour in different weeks. For females, this is attributed to changes in the proportions of the stages with time and the dependence of behaviour on stage. For males, there is some evidence of a relation between behaviour and humidity outside the hut. For females, the distribution of stages between different places of capture changes with time, stages II and III being most consistently associated with hut catches, while the most variable behaviour is shown by stage V.

The necessity for behaviour studies on mosquitos in the field is pointed out, especially in relation to field trials of residual insecticides.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 275 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Christophers, S. R., Sinton, J. A. & Covell, G. (1936). How to do a malaria survey. Third edition revised by Sinton, J. A..—Hlth Bull., Delhi, no. 14 (Malar. Bur. no. 5) (3rd edn.), 206 pp.Google Scholar
Christophers, S. R., Sinton, J. A. & Covell, G. (1939). How to do a malaria survey. Fourth edition revised by Covell, G..—Hlth Bull., Delhi, no. 14 (Malar. Bur. no. 6) (4th edn.), 208 pp.Google Scholar
Dakshinamurty, S. & Sharma, M. I. D. (1951 a). The humidity preferences of mosquitoes.—Indian J. Malariol, 5, pp. 209–219.Google ScholarPubMed
Dakshinamurty, S. & Sharma, M. I. D. (1951 b). The temperature preferences of mosquitoes.—Indian J. Malariol, 5, pp. 221–227.Google ScholarPubMed
Davidson, G. (1953). Experiments on the effect of residual insecticides in houses against Anopheles gambiae and A. funestus. —Bull. ent. Res, 44 pp. 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deane, L. M. (1951). Observanções sôbre alguns hábitos dos adultos de Culex fatigans, o principal transmissor da filariose em Belém, Pará.—Rev. Serv. Saúde públ, 4, pp. 423–464.Google Scholar
Gillies, M. T. (1954). Studies of house leaving and outside resting of Anopheles gambiae Giles and Anopheles funestus Giles in East Africa. I. The outside resting population.—Bull. ent. Res, 45, pp. 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddow, A. J. (1942). The mosquito fauna and climate of native huts at Kisumu, Kenya.—Bull. ent. Res, 33, pp. 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddow, A. J. (1954). Studies of the biting-habits of African mosquitos. An appraisal of methods employed, with special reference to the twenty-four-hour catch.—Bull. ent. Res, 45, pp. 199–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, W. V. (1942). Notes on Culicine mosquitos in Tanganyika Territory.—Bull. ent. Res, 33, pp. 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, K. S. & MacInnes, D. G. (1948). Notes on the bionomics of Anopheles gambiae and A. funestus in East Africa.—Bull. ent. Res, 39, pp. 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, P. F. & others. (1951). The Culex pipiens complex.—Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond, 102, pp. 331–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1938). The reactions of mosquitoes to temperature and humidity.—Bull. ent. Res, 29, pp. 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1951). Mosquito behaviour in relation to malaria transmission and control in the tropics.—219 pp. London, Arnold.Google Scholar
Paterson, D. D. (1939). Statistical technique in agricultural research.—263 pp. New York, McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Qutubuddin, M. (1953). The emergence and sex ratio of Culex fatigans Wied. (Diptera, Culicidae) in laboratory experiments.—Bull. ent. Res, 43, pp. 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tate, P. & Vincent, M. (1936). The biology of autogenous and anautogenous races of Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae).—Parasitology, 28, pp. 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wharton, R. H. (1951). The behaviour and mortality of Anopheles maculatus and Culex fatigans in experimental huts treated with DDT and BHC.—Bull. ent. Res, 42, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar