Oecologia

, Volume 139, Issue 4, pp 583–593 | Cite as

A field test for competitive effects of Aedes albopictus on A. aegypti in South Florida: differences between sites of coexistence and exclusion?

  • Steven A. Juliano
  • L. Philip Lounibos
  • George F. O’Meara
Community Ecology

Abstract

We tested whether interspecific competition from Aedes albopictus had measurable effects on A. aegypti at the typical numbers of larval mosquitoes found in cemetery vases in south Florida. We also tested whether the effect of interspecific competition from A. albopictus on A. aegypti differed between sites where A. aegypti either persists or went extinct following invasion by A. albopictus. Similar experiments manipulating numbers of A. albopictus in cemetery vases were conducted at three sites of A. aegypti persistence and three sites where A. aegypti was apparently extinct. The experiments were done using numbers of larvae that were determined by observed numbers of larvae for each site, and with resources (leaf detritus) that accumulated in experimental vases placed into each field site. In both the early rainy season (when number of mosquito larvae was low) and the late rainy season (when number of mosquito larvae was high), there was a significant effect of treatment on developmental progress of experimental A. aegypti. In the late rainy season, when numbers of larvae were high, there was also a significant effect of treatment on survivorship of A. aegypti. However, the competition treatment × site type (A. aegypti persists vs extinct) interaction was never significant, indicating that the competitive effect of A. albopictus on A. aegypti did not differ systematically between persistence versus extinction sites. Thus, although competition from A. albopictus is strong under field conditions at all sites, we find no evidence that variation in the impact of interspecific competition is associated with coexistence or exclusion. Interspecific competition among larvae is thus a viable explanation for exclusion or reduction of A. aegypti in south Florida, but variation in the persistence of A. aegypti following invasion does not seem to be primarily a product of variation in the conditions in the aquatic environments of cemetery vases.

Keywords

Interspecific competition Mosquitoes Biological invasion Aquatic insects Seasonal variation 

References

  1. Barata C, Hontoria F, Amat F, Browne R (1996) Competition between sexual and parthenogenetic Artemia —temperature and strain effects. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 196:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrera R (1996) Competition and resistance to starvation in larvae of container-inhabiting Aedes mosquitoes. Ecol Entomol 21:117–27Google Scholar
  3. Birungi J, Munstermann LE (2002) Genetic structure of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) populations based on mitochondrial ND5 sequences: evidence for an independent invasion into Brazil and United States. Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:125–132Google Scholar
  4. Black WC, Rai KS, Turco BJ, Arroyo DC (1989) Laboratory study of competition between United States strains of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 26:260–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackmore MS, Scoles GA, Craig GB Jr (1995) Parasitism of Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) by Ascogregarina spp. (Apicomplexa: Lecudinidae) in Florida. J Med Entomol 32:847–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Braks MAH, Honório NA, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Juliano SA, Lounibos LP (2003) Convergent habitat segregation of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in southeastern Brazil and Florida, USA. J Med Entomol 40:785–794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Braks MAH, Honório NA, Lounibos LP, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Juliano SA (2004) Interspecific competition between two invasive species of container mosquitoes in Brazil. Ann Entomol Soc Am 97:130–139Google Scholar
  8. Case TJ, Bolger DT, Petren K (1994) Invasion and competitive displacement among house geckos in the tropical Pacific. Ecology 75:464–477Google Scholar
  9. Chesson P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366Google Scholar
  10. Christophers R (1960) Aëdes aegypti (L.) the yellow fever mosquito: its life history, bionomics and structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Connell JH (1961) The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42:710–723Google Scholar
  12. Daugherty MP, Alto BW, Juliano SA (2000) Invertebrate carcasses as a resource for competing Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 37:364–372Google Scholar
  13. Dunson WA, Travis J (1991) The role of abiotic factors in community organization. Am Nat 138:1067–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edgerly JS, Willey MS, Livdahl TP (1993) The community ecology of Aedes egg hatching: implications for a mosquito invasion. Ecol Entomol 18:123–128Google Scholar
  15. Fernald EA, Patton DJ (eds) (1985) Water resources atlas of Florida. Florida State University, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  16. Fontenille D, Rodhain F (1989) Biology and distribution of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in Madagascar. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 5:219–225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank JH (1981) Recycling of discarded tires for control of Aedes aegypti. J Fla Anti-Mosq 52:44–48Google Scholar
  18. Garcia JJ, Fukuda T, Becnel JJ (1994) Seasonality, prevalence and pathogenicity of the gregarine Ascogregarina taiwanensis (Apicomplexa: Lecudinidae) in mosquitoes from Florida. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 10:413–418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg DE, Scheiner SM (2001) ANOVA and ANCOVA: field competition experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analyses of ecological experiments, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–98Google Scholar
  20. Gurevitch J (1986) Competition and the local distribution of the grass Stipa neomexicana. Ecology 67:46–57Google Scholar
  21. Hairston NG Sr (1980) The experimental test of an analysis of field distributions: competition in terrestrial salamanders. Ecology 61:817–826Google Scholar
  22. Hanley KA, Petren K, Case TJ (1998) An experimental investigation of the competitive displacement of a native gecko by an invading gecko—no role for parasites. Oecologia 115:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrington LC, Edman JD, Scott TW (2001) Why do female Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) feed preferentially and frequently on human blood? J Med Entomol 38:411–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison BA, Whitt PB, Powell EE, Hickman EY (1998) North Carolina mosquito records. I. Uncommon Aedes and Anopheles (Diptera:Culicidae). J Am Mosq Control Assoc 14:165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawley WA (1988) The biology of Aedes albopictus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 4(Suppl):1–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hemphill N (1991) Disturbance and variation in competition between two stream insects. Ecology 72:864–872Google Scholar
  28. Hill AM, Lodge DM (1999) Replacement of resident crayfishes by an exotic crayfish: the roles of competition and predation. Ecol Appl 9:678–690Google Scholar
  29. Ho BC, Ewert A, Chew ALM (1989) Interspecific competition between Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus and Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae): larval development in mixed cultures. J Med Entomol 26:615–623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobbs JH, Hughes EA, Eichold BH II (1991) Replacement of Aedes aegypti by Aedes albopictus in Mobile, Alabama. J Am Mosq Cont Assoc 7:488–489Google Scholar
  31. Holway DA, Suarez AV, Case TJ (2002) Role of abiotic factors in governing susceptibility to invasion: a test with argentine ants. Ecology 83:1610–1619Google Scholar
  32. Hornby JA, Moore DE, Miller TW Jr (1994). Aedes albopictus distribution, abundance, and colonization in Lee County, Florida and its effect on Aedes aegypti. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 10:397–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Huckle JM, Marrs RH, Potter JA (2002) Interspecific and intraspecific interactions between salt marsh plants: Integrating the effects of environmental factors and density of plant performances. Oikos 96:307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Human KG, Gordon DM (1996) Exploitation and interference competition between the invasive Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, and native ant species. Oecologia 105:405–412Google Scholar
  35. Juliano SA (1998) Species introduction and replacement among mosquitoes: interspecific resource competition or apparent competition? Ecology 79:255–268Google Scholar
  36. Juliano SA, O’Meara GF, Morrill JR, Cutwa MM (2002) Desiccation and thermal tolerance of eggs and the coexistence of competing mosquitoes. Oecologia 130:458–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kupferberg SJ (1997) Bullfrog (Rana catesbiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78:1736–1751Google Scholar
  38. Livdahl TP, Willey MS (1991) Prospects for an invasion: Competition between Aedes albopictus and native Aedes triseriatus. Science 253:189–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Losos JB, Spiller DA (1999) Differential colonization success and asymmetrical interactions between two lizard species. Ecology 80:252–258Google Scholar
  40. Lounibos LP (2002) Invasions by insect vectors of human disease. Annu Rev Entomol 47:233–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lounibos LP, O’Meara GF, Escher RL, Nishimura N, Cutwa M, Nelson T, Campos RE, Juliano SA (2001) Testing predictions of displacement of native Aedes by the invasive Asian Tiger Mosquito Aedes albopictus in Florida, USA. Biol Invas 3:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lounibos LP, Suárez S, Menéndez Z, Nishimura N, Escher RL, O’Connell SM, Rey JR (2002) Does temperature affect the outcome of larval competition between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus? J Vector Ecol 27:86–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. McGraw JB, Chapin FS III (1989) Competitive ability and adaptation to fertile and infertile soils in two Eriophorum species. Ecology 70:736–749Google Scholar
  44. McHugh CP (1993) Distributional records for Aedes mosquitoes from the U.S. Air Force ovitrapping program 1992. J Am Mosq Cont Assoc 9:352–355Google Scholar
  45. Mekuria Y, Hyatt MG (1995) Aedes albopictus in South Carolina. J Am Mosq Cont Assoc 11:468–470Google Scholar
  46. Mogi M, Miyagi I, Abadi K, Syafruddin (1996) Inter- and intraspecific variation in resistance to desiccation by adult Aedes (Stegomyia) spp. (Diptera: Culicidae) from Indonesia. J Med Entomol 33:53–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Montgomery DC (1976) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Moore CG (1999) Aedes albopictus in the United States: current status and prospects for further spread. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 15:221–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Novak MG, Higley LG, Christianssen CA, Rowley WA (1993) Evaluating larval competition between Aedes albopictus and A. triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) through replacement series experiments. Environ Entomol 22:311–318Google Scholar
  50. O’Meara GF, Evans LF, Gettman AD, Cuda JP (1995) Spread of Aedes albopictus and decline of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J Med Entomol 32:554–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Petren K, Case TJ (1996) An experimental demonstration of exploitation competition in an ongoing invasion. Ecology 77:18–132Google Scholar
  52. Petren K, Case TJ (1998) Habitat structure determines competition intensity and invasion success in gecko lizards. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:11739–11744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. SAS (1990) SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 6, 4th edn, vol 2. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  54. Service MW (1985) Population dynamics and mortalities of mosquito preadults. In: Lounibos LP, Rey JR, Frank JH (eds) Ecology of mosquitoes. Proceedings of a workshop Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, Vero Beach, Fla., USA, pp 185–201Google Scholar
  55. Sota T, Mogi M (1992a) Survival time and resistance to desiccation of diapause and non-diapause eggs of temperate Aedes (Stegomyia) mosquitoes. Entomol Exp Appl 63:155–161Google Scholar
  56. Sota T, Mogi M (1992b) Interspecific variation in desiccation survival time of Aedes (Stegomyia) mosquito eggs is correlated with habitat and egg size. Oecologia 90:353–358Google Scholar
  57. Sprenger D, Wuithiranyagool T (1986) The discovery and distribution of Aedes albopictus in Harris County, Texas, USA. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2:217–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Teng H-J, Apperson CS (2000) Development and survival of immature Aedes albopictus and Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the laboratory: effects of density, food, and competition on response to temperatures. J Med Entomol 37:40–52Google Scholar
  59. Travis J (1996) The significance of geographical variation in species interactions. Am Nat 148(Suppl):S1–S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warner SC, Dunson WA, Travis J (1991) Interactions of pH, density, and priority effects on the survivorship and growth of two species of hylid tadpoles. Oecologia 88:331–339Google Scholar
  61. Warner SC, Travis J, Dunson WA (1993) Effect of pH variation on interspecific competition between two species of hylid tadpoles. Ecology 74:183–194Google Scholar
  62. Williamson M (1996) Biological invasions. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven A. Juliano
    • 1
  • L. Philip Lounibos
    • 2
  • George F. O’Meara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Behavior, Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics sectionIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  2. 2.Florida Medical Entomology LaboratoryUniversity of FloridaVero BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations