Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363899›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Common predators and factors influencing their abundance in Anopheles funestus aquatic habitats in rural south-eastern Tanzania.

Herieth H Mahenge, Letus L Muyaga, Joel D Nkya, Khamis S Kifungo, Najat F Kahamba, Halfan S Ngowo, Emmanuel W Kaindoa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Herieth H MahengeEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-1971-7875
Letus L MuyagaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Joel D NkyaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Khamis S KifungoEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Najat F KahambaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Halfan S NgowoEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Emmanuel W KaindoaEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences Department, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust 107768/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 216448/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of larval predators in regulating the Anopheles funestus population in various malaria-endemic countries remains relatively unknown. This study aimed to investigate the common predators that co-exist with Anopheles funestus group larvae and evaluate factors that influence their abundance in rural south-eastern Tanzania.

methodsMosquito larvae and predators were sampled concurrently using standard dipper (350 ml) or 10 L bucket in previously identified aquatic habitats in selected villages in southern Tanzania. Predators and mosquito larvae were identified using standard identification keys. All positive habitats were geo-located and their physical features characterized. Water physicochemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS) and temperature were also recorded.

resultsA total of 85 previously identified An. funestus aquatic habitats in nine villages were sampled for larvae and potential predators. A total of 8,295 predators were sampled. Of these Coenagrionidae 57.7% (n = 4785), Corixidae 12.8% (n = 1,060), Notonectidae 9.9% (n = 822), Aeshnidae 4.9% (n = 405), Amphibian 4.5% (n = 370), Dytiscidae 3.8% (n = 313) were common. A total of 5,260 mosquito larvae were sampled, whereby Anopheles funestus group were 60.3% (n = 3,170), Culex spp. 24.3% (n = 1,279), An. gambie s.l. 8.3% (n = 438) and other anophelines 7.1% (n = 373). Permanent and aquatic habitats larger than 100m2 were positively associated with An. funestus group larvae (P<0.05) and predator abundance (P<0.05). Habitats with submerged vegetation were negatively associated with An. funestus group larvae (P<0.05). Only dissolved oxygen (DO) was positively and significantly affect the abundance of An. funestus group larvae (P<0.05). While predators' abundance was not impacted by all physicochemical parameters.

conclusionSix potential predator families were common in aquatic habitats of An. funestus group larvae. Additional studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of different predators on larval density and adult fitness traits. Interventions leveraging the interaction between mosquitoes and predators can be established to disrupt the transmission potential and survival of the An. funestus mosquitoes.

Indexed as

AnophelesMalariaAnimalsEcosystemHumansLarvaMosquito VectorsTanzaniaTemperature

Identifiers

PMID37363899
PMCPMC10292713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.