ArticlePeerJ2020
Persistent mosquito fogging can be detrimental to non-target invertebrates in an urban tropical forest.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breeding System ofBiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Evidence for Threshold-like Dynamics inInsects · 2026Article
- Integrated strategies for mosquito-borne disease control: a comprehensive review with emphasis on repellents and China's practices.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Outdoor biting by malaria vectors: what are the options for intervention?Malaria journal · 2025Review
- Detection and genetic diversity of Wolbachia and its associated prophage WO in mosquito populations from Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ExploitingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Leaf and Flower Extracts from the Dwarf Elder (Insects · 2024Article
- Limited Effect of Ground Floor Fogging on Mosquito Distribution in High-Rise Condominia.EcoHealth · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman population growth has led to biodiversity declines in tropical cities. While habitat loss and fragmentation have been the main drivers of urban biodiversity loss, man-made interventions to reduce health risks have also emerged as an unintentional threat. For instance, insecticide fogging to control mosquito populations has become the most common method of preventing the expansion of mosquito-borne diseases such as Dengue. However, the effectiveness of fogging in killing mosquitoes has been called into question. One concern is the unintended effect of insecticide fogging on non-target invertebrates that are crucial for the maintenance of urban ecosystems. Here, we investigate the impacts of fogging on: (1) target invertebrate taxon (Diptera, including mosquitoes); (2) non-target invertebrate taxa; and (3) the foraging behavior of an invertebrate pollinator taxon (Lepidoptera) within an urban tropical forest.
methodsWe carried out fogging with Pyrethroid insecticide (Detral 2.5 EC) at 10 different sites in a forest situated in the state of Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia. Across the sites, we counted the numbers of knocked-down invertebrates and identified them based on morphology to different taxa. We constructed Bayesian hierarchical Poisson regression models to investigate the effects of fogging on: (1) a target invertebrate taxon (Diptera) 3-h post-fogging; (2) selected non-target invertebrate taxa 3-h post-fogging; and (3) an invertebrate pollinator taxon (Lepidoptera) 24-h post-fogging.
resultsA total of 1,874 invertebrates from 19 invertebrate orders were knocked down by the fogging treatment across the 10 sites. Furthermore, 72.7% of the invertebrates counted 3-h post-fogging was considered dead. Our regression models showed that given the data and prior information, the probability that fogging had a negative effect on invertebrate taxa 3-h post-fogging was 100%, with reductions to 11% of the pre-fogging count of live individuals for the target invertebrate taxon (Diptera), and between 5% and 58% of the pre-fogging count of live individuals for non-target invertebrate taxa. For the invertebrate pollinator, the probability that fogging had a negative effect 24-h post-fogging was also 100%, with reductions to 53% of the pre-fogging count of live individuals. DISCUSSION: Our Bayesian models unequivocally demonstrate that fogging has detrimental effects on one pollinator order and non-target invertebrate orders, especially taxa that have comparatively lower levels of chitinisation. While fogging is effective in killing the target order (Diptera), no mosquitos were found dead in our experiment. In order to maintain urban biodiversity, we recommend that health authorities and the private sector move away from persistent insecticide fogging and to explore alternative measures to control adult mosquito populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.