IntechOpen

Home > Books > Mosquito Research - Recent Advances in Pathogen Interactions, Immunity, and Vector Control Strategies

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Vector Control Strategies

Written By

Wilber Gómez-Vargas and Giovani Esteban Zapata-Úsuga

Submitted: 30 January 2022 Reviewed: 22 April 2022 Published: 28 May 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.105026

Mosquito Research IntechOpen
Mosquito Research Recent Advances in Pathogen Interactions, Imm... Edited by Henry Puerta-Guardo

From the Edited Volume

Mosquito Research - Recent Advances in Pathogen Interactions, Immunity, and Vector Control Strategies

Edited by Henry Puerta-Guardo and Pablo Manrique-Saide

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

357 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

Abstract

Vector-borne diseases, mainly dengue and malaria, are serious public health problems in the world; for the control of Aedes and Anopheles mosquitoes, there are several strategies such as biological, genetic, chemical, physical, and cultural. For the application of these control strategies, it is important to take into account the integrated vector management promoted by the World Health Organisation, taking into account the local context. This chapter shows the most important recent advances in vector control methods. The efforts of researchers in the development and evaluation of these and new control methods, the political will of governments, funding from the business sector, and community participation are essential to the success of these strategies.

Keywords

  • Aedes
  • Anopheles
  • new technologies
  • vector-borne diseases
  • vector control

1. Introduction

Globally, dengue remains a serious public health problem due to increasingly severe epidemics [1] and the emergence of new arboviruses, such as chikungunya and Zika, and the re-emergence of other arboviruses that were already under control, such as yellow fever, which has recorded cases in urban settings for the first time in more than 50 years [2]. As for malaria, although in recent years there has been progressing in its reduction, it still continues to affect many communities, especially children in Africa [3]. World Health Organisation (WHO) warns of the growing threat of resistance from malaria vectors and parasites, and the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic [3].

Mosquito control of vectors Aedes and Anopheles measures include biological control, genetic control, chemical control, physical control, and cultural control.

Related to biological control, several studies have been reported recently that species of some fungal genera, for example, Streptomyces, Pycnoporus, Pestalotiopsis, Culicinomyces, Leptoneglia, Beauveria Metarhizium, Cochliobolus and Aspergillus and bacterial genera, for example, Wolbachia, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas display a potent ability to kill many species of mosquitoes, including those of the genera Aedes and Anopheles, mainly. Kairomones and pheromones are being developed. Nematode control for Aedes has been little studied, while for Anopheles, it has seen more development and interest in recent years.

As for genetic control, advances in the sterile insect technical (SIT), the insect incompatibility insect (IIT), and control by genetic manipulation are highlighted, mainly in Aedes control. SIT has been implemented mainly in Anopheles arabiensis.

In terms of chemical vector control, advances are directed towards the development of new insecticides extracted from plants and the use of the method Autodissemination Augmented by Males (ADAM) that can be useful for small and cryptic containers of Aedes aegypti and useful in the control of Anopheles arabiensis.

Physical control has been progressing in ovitraps and acoustic larvicides that are promising for control of A. aegypti. In Anopheles control, the use of mosquito nets is highlighted.

Concerning cultural control, communication for mobilisation and behavioural impact (COMBI), approaches to social participation and eco-health are of vital importance in control programmes.

The WHO in its global vector control response 2017–2030 [4], noted the urgent need for the development and integration of innovative mosquito control methods, mainly Aedes and Anopheles vectors. New control strategies targeting these species are being developed, but their impact on arboviral diseases and malaria transmitted by these vectors has not yet been demonstrated. To this end, the WHO has adopted Integrated Vector Management [IVM], defined as “a rational decision-making process for the optimal use of vector control resources” [5], which provides countries with long-term sustainable and ecologically sound control methods that can reduce dependence on insecticides and protect populations where vector-borne diseases are prevalent, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of national vector control programmes [6].

The objective of this chapter is to review the progress made over the last 10 years in the control of the Aedes and Anopheles vectors.

Advertisement

2. Control Aedes mosquitoes

2.1 Biological control

2.1.1 Traditional strategies

Species A. aegypti and Aedes albopictus are the most prominent vectors in the transmission of arboviruses, such as dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever, and Zika [7]. Worldwide, biological control of these species, mainly Ae. aegypti has been specifically geared towards larvae, and the most commonly used control method has been biolarvicide Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) and larvivores fish [8].

2.1.2 Bacterial control

An important and promising development dwells in the use of endosymbiont gram-negative bacteria Wolbachia. The strain being used in field trials is the wMel strain of Wolbachia pipientis. It consists of the artificial infection of Ae. aegypti (wAlbB) or Ae. albopictus (wPip) with the bacteria, mainly transmitted vertically, which intervenes in the manipulation of the host’s reproduction to optimise its maternal transmission through eggs, favouring females, and inducing different distortion phenotypes among sexes of the progeny through mechanisms of parthenogenesis, feminization, and cytoplasmatic incompatibility (CI) [9, 10, 11, 12]. Wolbachia is also present in somatic tissues, it can, therefore, be acquired from infected embryonic lineages or pass from cell to cell [13]. Furthermore, these bacteria can also block the replication of arboviruses (pathogenic interference) in populations of field mosquitoes [14, 15]. After Wolbachia is established in the local mosquito population, there is no need for further releases. It could also be genetically modified to prevent the vector from becoming infected, a phenomenon known as paratransgenesis [16]. Nevertheless, the use of Wolbachia as a control strategy is under scrutiny due to uncertainties related to the longevity of the viral suppression and the possibility of concomitant adaptative changes in the vector mosquito, the bacteria, or the virus [17]. Consequently, the use of mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia has not been approved in most countries due to insufficient knowledge of the potential dangers of this control method [18]. Pilot tests are currently being conducted by the World Mosquito Program in 12 countries in Asia, Central and South America, and the Pacific region [19].

Recently with the advances in nanotechnology, the bacterial products are produced from the synthesis of nanoparticles method that has been used with B. thuringiensis in third instar larvae of Ae. aegypti resulting in a 65% mortality [LC50: 0.10 ppm and LC90: 0.39 ppm] [20]. In another study, the ovicidal, pupicidal, and larvicidal efficacy of silver nanoparticles synthesised by Bacillus marisflavi strain isolated from marine habitat in species of Ae. aegypti, Culex quinquefasciatus and Anopheles stephensi have been demonstrated. The use of nanoparticles and their rapid synthesis of AgNPs against vectors, especially Ae. aegypti, would be a good biological control tool. However, the current research has some limitations, such as the cost-effective analysis and possible contamination of nanoparticles in the ambient or their effects on other useful microbes [21].

On the other hand, bacteria-derived metabolites may be a potential substitute for insecticides that have developed resistance. A study showed that secondary metabolites from extremophilic bacteria Bacillus and Pseudomonas sp., which caused larvae mortality of Ae. aegypti and Cu. quinquefasciatus of 100% at a concentration of 100 ppm [22].

2.1.3 Fungal control

Nowadays, there is an ample selection of fungal products with larvicide properties against vector Ae. aegypti. One of such products is chitinase enzymes from Streptomyces cacaoi subsp. cacaoi-M20 directed at the chitin required by the larvae, in which at the concentrations of 75 μl, 125 μl, 250 μl, and 500 μl no pupa formation and adult emergence were observed in experiments conducted [23]. Other promising products are ethyl acetate extracts from fungi, such as fungus Pycnoporus sanguineus which had a larvicidal activity of LC50 = 156.8 ppm and relative potency (0.612) and Pestalotiopsis virgulate with a larvicidal activity of LC50 = 101.8 ppm and relative potency (1.634), against Ae. aegypti larvae [24].

Studies with entomopathogenic fungi have proven promising in vector control such as Culicinomyces clavisporus that showed LC50 (≤ 3.6 × 105 conidia/ml) after a 3-day exposure and LT50 (≤ 1.3 days) at 106 conidia/ml against Ae. aegypti larvae [25] and Leptoneglia chapmanii where the persistence and pathogenicity decreased over time regardless of location, the assays showed that the mortality of Ae. aegypti larvae was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in containers located outside without sun protection (89% at first week and 9% at sixth week) compared with the containers located indoors (97% at first week and 42% at sixth week) and outside with shade (89% at first week and 29% at sixth week) [26, 27]. Another new fungus is Isaria tenuipes (formerly Paecilomyces tenuipes) a common fungal species that frequently affects major agricultural pests usually belonging to the group lepidopteran but this study showed that the fungus heavily damaged the internal gut cells and external physiology of Ae. aegyptilarvae and its non-toxic activity against aquatic predators, such as Toxorhynchites splendens, this fungus will add on to its biologically safe insecticides [28].

As for adult control, particularly of Ae. aegypti, new methods of control have been developed in recent years, such as autodissemination of entomopathogenic fungi, mainly using isolates Metarhizium anisoplae and Beaveria bassiana in the laboratory [29, 30]. This process “uses a sexual or other attractants to concentrate individuals of one sex and spread the fungi in natural populations” [31]. M. anisoplae transmitted by males killed 85% of females in sexual encounters and reduced female fecundity by 99% [29]. B. bassiana killed 90% of the females confined with a fungus-contaminated male in 15 days and reduced female fecundity by 96% [30].

Recently with the advances in nanotechnology, products produced from the synthesis of nanoparticles aided by fungal are being studied. For example, the larvicide activity of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) synthesised by fungus Cochliobolus lunatus, where a 100% mortality was observed at concentrations of 10 and 5 ppm against all instars treated [2nd, 3rd y 4th] [32]. In another study, cerium oxide nanoparticles were synthesised through Aspergillus niger, which resulted in 100% mortality of first instar larvae of Ae. aegypti at a dosage of 0.250 mg/L [33].

2.1.4 Entomopathogenic nematodes

Few studies are interested in the effect of nematodes on Ae. aegypti control, a study published in Argentina in 2014, was tested the infectivity of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora on Ae. aegypti larvae, and larval mortality rates ranges of 0–84% [34]. In another study conducted in Mexico, strains of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora and Steinernema carpocapsae were tested for their pathogenicity as infective juveniles (IJs) against larvae of Ae. aegypti (L.) of third- and fourth-instar mosquito larvae. Strain M5 of S. carpocapsae caused 100% mortality at the 200 IJ/larva concentration, with a median lethal concentration (LC50) of 42 IJ/larva (LC90 = 91 IJ/larva). Strain M18 of Heterohabditis bacteriophora caused 73% mortality at 200 IJ/larva, with an LC50 = 72 and LC90 = 319 IJ/larva [35]. In a study, the larvicidal potential against some mosquito species of several nematodes isolated from soil was evaluated under laboratory conditions. The nematode Steinernema abassi showed 97.33% of mortality against Ae. aegypti [36]. These researches would lead to the development of an eco-friendly mosquito control agent.

2.2 Genetic control

2.2.1 Sterile insect technical (SIT)

Over the last decades, the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), one of the most important methods of genetic control, has greatly developed [37]. This technique, specific to each species, consists of mass-rearing of male insects, genetically modified or not [through chemicals or radiation], to be released in target areas in quantities sufficient for them to compete with wild males for wild females and mate with them. They will, therefore, sterilise the females or transfer to their progeny lethal modifications or modifications that prevent pathogenic transmission, contributing to the reduction of target populations. Sustained liberation of sterile males will reduce the target population or potentially eradicate isolated populations [16, 18, 38]. Since the 1960s and 1970s, SIT has been successfully used against Cu. quinquefasciatus in the USA [39], An. albimanus in El Salvador [40] and the control of tsetse fly in Africa [41]. Pilot trials in the USA in which gamma-irradiated sterile male Ae. aegypti and Anopheles quadrimaculatus were released, showed no apparent suppression of populations after 43–48 weeks in the treated areas [42].

The application of SIT against mosquitoes must take into account mass-rearing procedures, sterilisation methods, transport and release methods, and trapping systems [43]. The application of SIT in vectors requires the release of males only because it maximises the effectiveness of releases, the efficiency of breeding efforts, and manages the public perception and stringent regulations that exist even for the release of small numbers of potentially disease-transmitting females. One of the advantages of releasing sterile males is the control of cryptic breeding sites, as these males locate their mates who then lay non-viable eggs, allowing for more effective control of these sites which are difficult to control with insecticides [43].

Nowadays, the viability of SIT for mosquitos Aedes is being evaluated with pilot trials by institutions and governments from different countries, such as Brazil, China, Cuba, French Polynesia, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, Reunion, Singapore, Spain, Sudan, Thailand, and the United States [43].

2.2.2 Incompatible insect technique (IIT)

This technique of incompatible insects is related to SIT, as instead of releasing sterile males, Wolbachia-infected males are released which, after mating with a wild female, do not produce viable offspring [44]. This technique exploits the biological mechanism of cytoplasmic incompatibility present in Wolbachia to produce infected but not sterilised males as is the case with radiation and genetic modification which impose a large fitness burden or suffer from complicated regulatory pathways [44]. Recently, studies combining the SIT and Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT) have been carried out for Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus [45, 46]. This technique involves triple-infecting laboratory mosquitoes with Wolbachia strains (Ae. albopictus is naturally infected with wAlbA and wAlbB; the triple infection incorporates wPip) and irradiating the pupae to sterilise females. However, for this combination to be deemed the safest solution for the suppression of vector populations, perfect sexual identification mechanisms must be developed [46].

2.2.3 Control by genetic manipulation

Among the genetic control techniques, the most advanced strategy is the release of insects carrying a self-limiting gene (RISL) [10]. According to Zheng et al. [46], this method consists of inserting a self-limiting gene into the genome of the vector that interrupts its development, thus preventing it from reaching the adult stage, and then mass-producing them and releasing them into the wild to compete with wild populations. The purpose of this technique is to suppress the local populations and reduce the likelihood of disease transmission. It should be noted that sustained release of transgenic males is necessary to maintain suppression of wild Ae. aegypti populations. However, one of the disadvantages of this technique is that males carrying the lethal gene may be less competitive in mating than wild males, leading to low population suppression [10].

At the present time, mosquito control techniques, such as genetic handling strategies to produce “female killers”, consisting of releasing males with a gene that is lethal to the females and will cause conditioned sterilisation or selective lethality, continue to evolve [47]. Another technique is Homing Endonuclease Genes (HEG), which grant resistance to infection and determine fertility and sex differentiation in mosquitoes are also being used [48]. Finally, a genetic technique based on CRISPR, to propagate target genes through traditional Mendelian inheritance, is being developed under laboratory conditions. Its most recent advancement has a binary focus to simultaneously interrupt the genes that are essential for female viability and male fertility of Ae. aegypti, that can suppress and eliminate populations at any life stage resulting in the survival of sterile males. It requires two breeding strains, one expressing Cas9 and the other expressing guide RNAs (gRNAs) known as precision-guided sterile insect technique (pgSIT), which compared with SIT and IIT not require the use of radiation, Wolbachia, or antibiotics, and will not persist in the environment longterm [49].

2.3 Chemical control

2.3.1 Traditional control

Insecticides have played a predominant role in vector control programmes. Accordingly, controlled release larvicide temephos has been commonly used in Ae. aegypti larvae control. In regards to adult mosquito control, it has been carried out through ultra-low volume (ULV) spatial spraying with organophosphate insecticides, such as malathion and pyrimiphos-methil, and with pyrethroids, such as deltamethrin, cypermethrin, and cyfluthrin, in addition to personal protection with repellents [50]. Recently, PAHO has recommended indoor residual spraying (IRS) of insecticides in urban areas to control Ae. aegypti, a measure in place to control malaria vectors [51]. However, intensive use of insecticides has led to the development of resistance in vector populations [52], environmental pollution, destruction of beneficial fauna, and the subsequent loss of balance in different ecosystems [53].

2.3.2 Control by autodissemination augmented by males (ADAM)

At present, innovative strategies using biorational insecticides, which present minimal impacts on human beings and the environment, are evolving. The most interesting and promising strategy implemented has been the Autodissemination Augmented by Males (ADAM), which consists of the use of males Ae. aegypti or Ae. albopictus that have been mass-reared, dusted with pyriproxyfen (PPF) or methoprene (insect growth regulators) and then released and thus transfer lethal concentrations directly contaminate larval habitats or indirectly contaminate them via mating with females that then visit such sites [54]. This substance acts analogously to the juvenile hormone and interferes in the metamorphoses of Aedes larvae in breeding grounds or resting grounds during oviposition, thus, reducing mosquito populations [55]. These compounds have advantages that include their “high toxicity to immature mosquitoes, low toxicity to adult mosquitoes, a substantial amount of prior research and environmental assessment, and its classification as a low risk insecticide” [53]. This strategy has been successfully implemented under field conditions in Ae. aegypti control in Brazil, Peru, and the USA [54, 56, 57, 58]. Likewise, it has been tested for Ae. albopictus under laboratory and field conditions in the USA [53, 59]. Brelsfoard et al.; [58] clarify that this technique should be integrated into existing control programmes and can be overlaid onto existing autocidal methods (e.g., SIT and IIE) and can offer effective control to the small and cryptic containers.

2.3.3 Development of the new insecticides

New insecticides have been developed to control mosquito resistance. Fludora Co-Max®, for example, combines two active ingredients with different modes of action (flupyradifurone, a butenolide, and transfluthrin, a pyrethroid), and has shown 100% mortality of resistant Aedes in the USA and Brazil through vehicle-mounted ULV spraying [60]. Another laboratory-tested insecticide that has shown 100% mortality in Ae. aegypti control is chlorfenapyr (CFP), a pyrrole insecticide repurposed from agriculture that could potentially be used for indoor residual spraying [60].

Studies have shown mortality of Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus and other vector’s larvae with essential oils or plant extracts such as Pergularia daemia [61], Plumeria rubra [62], Gmelina asiatica [63], Annnona squamosa [64], Polianthus tuberosa [65], Ambrosia arborescens [66], Solanum mammosum [67], Annona glabra [68], Plumbago auriculata [69], and Marsilea quadrifolia [70]. All these studies show promise for the development of new insecticides for vector control.

2.3.4 Use of nanotechnology in the manufacture of plant-based products

The development of new compounds from plants is motivated by increasing resistance to insecticides. As of late, there have been developments in mosquito larvicides made from silver nanoparticles [AgNPs] synthesised by plants, this method is rapid, cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and safe for humans and it has exceptional properties such as bacterial activity, high resistance to oxidation and high thermal conductivity. The larvicidal effect is still unknown but it is assumed that AgNPs penetrate through the larval membrane causing death [71].

2.4 Physical control

Several strategies for physical control of Ae. aegypti have been developed, that is, physically interrupting larvae and pupae respiration through disturbances in air contact above the water surface with oils, surfactants, and polystyrene pearls [72] and mechanical barriers, such as lids, curtains, mosquito nets, and ovitraps [73].

New ovitraps are promising tools for the control, recent studies in laboratory and field, showed that the autocidal gravid ovitraps (AGO) which attract and capture gravid females looking for a place to lay their eggs [74] and attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) that use the staple sugar feeding behaviour of males ofAe. aegypti in nature for their control [75] have been shown to reduce the Ae. aegypti population.

Acoustic larvicidal are innovative technologies designed for the physical control of Ae. aegypti. This system uses sound waves that transmit acoustic energy across the water by causing rapid and traumatic vibrations, thus breaking the walls of the dorsal tracheal trunk and resulting in instant death. Furthermore, the lowest resonating energies affect other structures, inhibiting the emergence of larvae. In conclusion, mortality is the result of both effects [76, 77]. The lowest frequencies (20–50 kHz) are known to be more effective as larvicidal than higher frequencies (>100 kHz) [77]. However, when other aquatic insects, such as Diptera, Hemiptera, and Coleoptera that have open tracheal systems, are exposed to the acoustic beam for a prolonged period they may be adversely affected [78]. But other studies in which this acoustic control system has been used have shown high larval mortality of Ae. aegypti and Cu. quinquefasciatus (100%), both laboratory and field conditions and did not affect larvae predators, such as Methanofollis formosanus, Poecilia reticulata (Guppy fish), Xiphophorus helleri (Swordtail fish), Micronecta grisea (small water-boatmen) and Indoplanorbis exustus (freshwater snails) [76, 77, 79]. The promising nature of this system resides in the low risk of resistance development in target mosquito populations and this equipment can be used as a complement to the chemical or biological larvicides that have been used in control programmes under specific operational conditions [78].

2.5 Cultural control

2.5.1 Communication for mobilisation and behavioural impact (COMBI)

Since 2003, WHO has promoted the integrated management strategy for dengue prevention and control. Within this strategy is Communication for Behavioural Impact (COMBI) methodology. According to Parks and Lloyd [80], COMBI plans communication and social mobilisation that promotes the acquisition of recommended healthy practices and encourages the adoption and maintenance of those behaviours by involving individuals and families through the promotion of objectives with integrated strategies that contribute to the achievement of such objectives. Behavioural change has been shown to be essential for the prevention of arboviruses, such as dengue, so it is important to have a better understanding of the perception of the risk of becoming ill. This approach has been implemented in Asia and the Americas for several years, leaving lasting lessons in which goals, achievements, and difficulties were identified [81, 82, 83]. Lessons learned in the Americas show that it has been evidenced that meeting behavioural objectives, integration of multidisciplinary teams, formative research, community mobilisation, and advocacy have favoured the implementation of COMBI, however, the constant change of personnel, lack of political will due to the fact that these programmes are difficult to implement because they take longer to reflect impact compared to a low-cost approach Information, Education and Communication (IEC), which is limited to communication through home visits, leaflets and different vertical actions [83].

2.5.2 Approaches to social participation

Community involvement is a key element for the successful control of Ae. aegypti, studies conducted mainly in the 2000s in several countries suggest that integrated community-based control of Ae. aegypti under different approaches reduced vector density and had an impact on dengue transmission [84, 85, 86, 87, 88]. These approaches, such as Socialisation of Evidence for Participatory Action [SEPA], have been used in mobilising communities for vector control in Nicaragua and Mexico, known as The Green Way, which is based on cluster randomised controlled trial added community engagement in dengue prevention. These studies aimed to prove the hypothesis that informed mobilisation adds to the effectiveness of programmes managed by local governments [89, 90, 91, 92, 93]. In Cuba, other approaches have been implemented, such as Rifkin’s approaches to community participation in health programmes, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s approaches to sustainability [86, 94, 95], and the evaluation of community participation in health programmes and the theory of education [96, 97, 98]. In China, Bishop’s five-step learning process approach for community empowerment in vector control was applied [99].

2.5.3 Ecosystem approaches to health

In recent years, three approaches to community participation in Ae. aegypti control have gained relevance: eco-health, the socio-ecological system, and the political theory of health.

Eco-health integrates factors from the micro and macro contexts, that is, ecological [latitude, altitude, temperature, humidity, and precipitation], biological [natural and artificial surroundings related to vector and virus], and social factors [demographic, economic, political, and cultural, including programmes for the prevention and control of dengue] [100]. Studies have been carried out in the Americas and Asia [101, 102] to determine the weight of ecological and social factors in dengue vector infestation, and to analyse their implementation [103].

Based on systemic thinking, the socio-ecological system approach makes human beings a part of nature [104]. This model focuses on the interactions between human and natural systems along with a series of spatial, temporal, and organisational scales; for instance, the individual, the community, and the society [105]. It has been implemented, for the most part, in the city of Machala, Ecuador [106, 107, 108, 109].

The political ecology of health analyses how health is positioned within socio-environmental networks that lead to illness and examines the contextual realities in decision making for resource use in health matters. Constructs about health authored by individual participants and institutions through the relations between social and environmental systems emerge within these networks [110]. In Ecuador, researchers tried to establish the social and environmental interactions of illnesses transmitted by Ae. aegypti, and concluded that the vulnerability of the population to these arboviral diseases stems from the socio-political limitations of community action and poverty, combined with a fragile public health system that undertakes incomplete, sporadic efforts to control such diseases [111]. Another recent study that has used this approach in the city of Maputo, Mozambique [112], took into consideration the patterns of distribution and storage of water, as well as the biophysical characteristics that make stored water more attractive to vector Ae. aegypti. In Maputo, all families store water, but different communities do it in different ways depending on their socio-economic situation. Therefore, it is dependent on an explicit analysis of power relations. Poor people store water both inside and outside of their homes, while wealthier people do it in closed tanks on top of their residences. The latter do not see nor live close to the stored water.

Advertisement

3. Anopheles mosquito control

3.1 Biological and genetic control

3.1.1 Biological control with bacteria

An alternative to the use of insecticides is the use of entomopathogenic bacteria, which has been implemented in some countries since the beginning of the century, when, in 1904, Meyer and Neide described the first bacterium, which attacks mosquito larvae, Bacillus sphaericus [113]. To date, about 35 strains of this bacterium are known to exist worldwide and are still effective on Anopheles [114]. Another bacterium, which has been widely used is B. thuringiensis var. israelensis, which is currently considered highly effective [115, 116]. The application of these larvicides although effective in controlling Anopheles has financial limitations in addition to the shortage of personnel trained in the ecology and biology of the vectors, the lack of organisational structures, and the predominance of vertical control programmes [117].

Another bacterium, which has recently been evaluated, is Wolbachia. It has been tested for the control of Ae. aegypti. Wolbachia is maternally transmitted intracellular bacteria, which invade insect populations, by manipulating their reproduction and immunity, thus, limiting the spread of numerous human pathogens including Plasmodium, but the activity of these bacteria in Anopheles control programmes has not been explored. Inhibition of Plasmodium falciparum in Anopheles gambiae under laboratory conditions has been reported [118] and the same author demonstrated that the native microbiome of A. gambiae and An. stephensi prevents vertical transmission of Wolbachia [119]. On the other hand, there are records of natural infection of this bacterium in wild Anopheles, as reported in West Africa where Wolbachia was found in An. gambiae from the field [120] and in larvae of An. stephensi [121]. On the same continent, but in sub-Saharan Africa, Wolbachia was found in low densities in species of the gambiae complex (An. moucheti and An. demeilloni) [122]. Similar reports were recorded in Central Africa by the World Mosquito Program [123]. Reports have also been made in Malaysia where they recorded 17 Anopheles species, of which eight species were positive for the natural occurrence of Wolbachia [124].

3.1.2 Entomopathogenic fungus

Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana, are the two entomopathogenic fungi well recognised in the literature, these can infect mosquitoes early in life and kill them, depending on the exposure dose and fungus isolate, after 3–14 days. In addition, these fungi have shown that interfere with Plasmodium parasite development in the Anopheles mosquito [125].

The discovery of new mosquitocides from fungal extracts for Anopheles species is promising, that is, the extract from Penicillium toxicarium has exhibited high toxicity to mosquito larvae and adults on A. gambiae [126]. Other studies showed that the fungal extracts of Trichoderma asperellum had a larvicidal effect in vitro on Anopheline larvae [127, 128].

3.1.3 Biological control with nematodes

The use of Mermithid worms (Nematoda, Mermithidae) for the control of Anopheles larvae has been used for several years. The nematode with which the first reported work began was the species Romanomermis culicivorax. This is an obligate endoparasite of mosquito larvae and has been recorded in An. stephensi, An. albimanus, An. gambiae, Culex, and Aedes, the advantage is that it does not affect animals, plants, and humans. In the United States, the nematode has been used to control insects, such as Anopheles freeborni and several species of Culex, and is classified by the United States Department of Agriculture as a safe and innocuous biological product for mosquito control [129]. In Brazil, in 2000, a bioplant was created in the facilities of the Federal University of the State of Roraima, for rearing Romanomermis iyengari as a control strategy in larval breeding sites of Anopheles sp. in breeding sites in Boa Vista - Roraima [130]. In Mexico, applications of a dose of 2000–3000 pre-parasitic juvenile R. iyengari per square metre produced an infection rate of approximately 85–100% in An. pseudopunctipennis larvae, thus reducing the risk of malaria transmission to people living nearby breeding sites [131].

New studies have been carried out in recent years, the nematode R. culicivorax was used in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region in Nicaragua and showed efficiency in controlling larval densities of Anopheles albimanus [132]. In another study, isolated nematodes were subsequently cultured and evaluated their larvicidal potential against the larvae of several mosquitoes. The nematode Heterohabditis indica showed 97.33% of mortality against An. stephensi [36]. In a recent study in Africa, the nematode R. iyengari was mass-produced, and the pre-parasitic stage (J2) was used for laboratory and field experiments. In field experiments, the monthly applications of 3500–5000 pre-parasitic nematodes per m2 eliminated larval mosquito development in Anopheles and mixed breeding sites [133]. In Benin, West Africa evaluated coconut coir fibres as a replacement for coarse sand to improve yields in largescale production of R. iyengari because this method has the potential for facilitating the wider distribution of this nematode for use against malaria vectors in West Africa [134].

3.1.4 Biological control with kairomones

Female mosquito vectors use physical and chemical signals to locate their blood food source in vertebrate hosts, such as transpiration of CO2, octenol, lactic acid, and a variety of sweat compounds released in respiration and excretions, producing characteristic odours of substances called kairomones, which are chemicals produced by other organisms different to the insects but which attract them [135]. This is a new area to integrate vector control systems since they are just starting with the first studies conducted in Africa where it incorporated a system of traps with kairomones as attractants as a means of control An. gambiae. Thus, the first Kairomone [Methyl mercaptan] has already been identified, which attracts this species of Anopheles, which will open the possibility to conduct similar studies in other countries and thus, expand more on this control method [136]. These studies allow to do new research and the search for new strategies of this type in other malarial countries, which can become an alternative control model.

3.1.5 Biological control with pheromones

The use of pheromones in odour traps for the surveillance and control of mosquito vectors is considered a new and viable component of integrated vector management programmes. Few works have been conducted, by using these substances, due to the difficulty of synthesising them in the laboratory. A study shows pheromone release in the reproductive frenzy of some Anopheles species has been reported at the laboratory level in species, such as An. arabiensis and An. gambiae and five species of importance in the transmission in Africa (An. gambiae, An. coluzzii, An. arabiensis, An. merus, and An. funestus) in semi-field experiments [137]. It is important to further expand these types of studies, replicate them, and set the foundations for the next generation of attractants and traps to be used in vector-borne disease control programmes.

3.1.6 Sterile insect technique (SIT) in Anopheles

In recent years, the possibility of using the sterile insect technique (SIT) as part of the programmes against mosquitoes has received increased attention, this is due to the resistance developed by parasites to drugs and vectors to insecticides [138]. The most developed model for SIT is with the species Anopheles arabiensis but when considering a mosquito release programme, one of the first issues to be addressed is how to eliminate/separate the hematophagous vector females, several studies have investigated this issue, because sex separation increases the efficiency of an SIT programme [139, 140]. So much progress has been made in these researches that in the study of Kaiser et al., [141] three separate releases were performed within a 2-year period. Approximately 5000–15,000 laboratory-reared male An. arabiensis (KWAG) were produced and marked for mark–release–recapture experiments, this study showed that marked males were found in swarms with wild males, indicating that laboratory-reared males are able to locate and participate in mating swarms.

3.2 Chemical and physical control

Indoor residual spraying (IRS) and the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have been effective control strategies for malaria vector control, leading to a reduction in cases between 2002 and 2017 [142, 143]. However, there are two major problems—first, the use of these strategies alone or in combination will not eliminate malaria; and second, insecticide resistance of the main malaria vectors is widespread and increasing [142]. According to the literature, few advances have been made in the development of new insecticides for malaria vector control. In this regard, a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the pyrethroid deltamethrin (Fludora Fusion) was recently developed as a new vector control tool, which has been effective in managing resistance [144].

One study demonstrated in large-cage SFS experiments the autodissemination of PPF by the malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis, which provides proof of principle for the autodissemination of PPF to breeding habitats by malaria vectors. Bioassay of water samples from artificial habitats in these experiments resulted in significantly lower emergence rates in treated chambers (0.16 ± 0.23) compared to controls (0.97 ± 0.05) (p < 0.0001) [145]. To this end, Kiware et al., [146] conducted deterministic mathematical models to describe that use only field-measurable input parameters and capture the biological processes that mediate PPF autodissemination.

3.3 Cultural control

3.3.1 Combi

The COMBI methodology is a very local and targeted methodology that integrates health education in a language of its own, community mobilisation, and social, anthropological, and biological research, directed in a sharp and intelligent way towards specific and precise health behavioural outcomes [80]. This methodology differs from traditional approaches, achieving generational changes in vector-borne disease control and prevention programmes, but which are subject to political will for their continuity and execution. For example, in Colombia, the COMBI strategy was implemented in several departments (Antioquia, Cauca, Chocó, Córdoba, and Valle del Cauca) articulated with vector-borne disease control programmes, where the behavioural objective was the use of nets [83]. In rural areas of Sudan, a study was conducted where it was assessed the effectiveness of COMBI strategy in enhancing the utilisation of long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) among mothers of underfive children, the study demonstrated the usefulness of COMBI strategy for increasing awareness about malaria, developing a positive perception towards malaria prevention and, increasing the utilisation of LLINs [147].

3.3.2 Approaches to social participation and eco-health

Community motivation to participate in entomological projects is an important premise. A qualitative approach was used to survey the factors motivating members of the local community to assist in the implementation of Target Malaria’s entomological research activities in Bana, Western Burkina Faso. The results showed a degree of consistency around five categories of motivation: (a) enhance domestic protection from mosquitoes and malaria, (b) contribute to a future world free of the disease, (c) acquire knowledge and skills, (d) earn financial compensation, and (e) gain social prestige for the village [148]. A cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted in Malawi combined the interventions to the current national malaria control strategies of Malawi with community-based larval source management and structural house improvements for 2 years in rural, southern Malawi and demonstrated to reduce malaria transmission below the level reached by current interventions alone [149].

In a recent study, community participation is key to the success of IVM implementation at the local level. The project promoted the adoption and sustainability of IVM and scale-up of IVM-related activities as well as increased community participation and partnership in malaria control through outreach, capacity-building, and collaboration with other stakeholders in the area. Thus, it is that between 2016 and 2018 the project was able to reach 25,322 people in the community advocacy and social mobilisation initiatives [150].

The community-based interventions and research to action based on an ecosystem framework (eco-health) provided information in an integrative way characterising annual dynamics among indigenous communities. The research was conducted with the Bari of Karikachaboquira and the Wayúu of Marbacella and El Horno in Colombia, using qualitative and participatory methods, including seasonal graphics, semi-structured interviews, geo-referencing routes, and participatory observation, an eco-health calendar was obtained for each community, linking the socioecological dynamics to specific diseases, especially malaria. The eco-health calendar allows the integration of eco-bio-social factors in a layout that breaks conceptual and cultural barriers [151].

Table 1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of the Aedes and Anopheles vector control strategies.

ControlVectorsStrategiesAdvantagesDisadvantages
BiologicalAedesBacillus thuringiensis var. israelensisNo resistance Selective and safe Acceptable for treating drinking water sources and containers. Long-lasting, moderately costly, and eco-friendlyLow residual action in polluted habitats.
AnophelesBacillus sphaericusNo resistance Selective and safe Acceptable for treating drinking water sources and containers Long-lasting, moderately costly, and eco-friendlyLow residual action in polluted habitats.
AnophelesKairomones and pheromones*Selective and safeUnderstudy
Aedes, AnophelesLarvivorous fishWell accepted in several countries, needs a delivery mechanism and maintenance. Adequate for treating large and/or permanent mosquito habitats. Eco-friendlyThe intense work to maintain the organisms in the containers depend on the above environmental factors, in addition to the emptying of reservoirs, and escape or death of the organisms. For fish its resistance to temperature and the physicochemical characteristics of the water, especially to chlorine.
Nematodes
Fungi*The specific pathogenic capacity to mosquito larvae and the prolonged period of persistence. Laboratory maintenance. Eco-friendlyRequire maintenance or large-scale infrastructure. Require demanding long-term maintenance. Delay in generating mortality. Their viability is affected by environmental factors such as temperature, pH, salinity and organic matter content in the water, as well as by external factors such as ultraviolet A radiation from the sun.
Wolbachia*Wolbachia can invade and persist in wild mosquito populations. Low-cost, self-sustaining form control. Persistence and varying invasiveness of the modifications induced, with the need to consider the evolution and long-term effects of the factors responsible for these modifications, including their potential for transfer to other species. Helps to reduce the use of insecticide and can be combined with the conventional techniques.Wolbachia has not been approved in most countries due to insufficient knowledge of the potential dangers of this control method. Complicated regulatory pathways.
GeneticAedes, AnophelesSterile Insect Technical (SIT)*The major benefit of minimising the direct impact of vector control on health and the environment; the potential for unintended replacement of the target population by the population of another vector species; no large-scale maintenance or infrastructure required; helping to reduce the use of insecticide and can be combined with the conventional techniques.Require demanding long-term maintenance, the disadvantage of being rather inflexible, or even uncontrollable (e.g., of the expected spread affecting an entire species). SIT and genetic manipulation impose a large fitness burden and suffer from complicated regulatory pathways
Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT)*
Genetic manipulation (Female Killers, HEG, pgSIT)*
ChemicalAedes, AnophelesInsecticides and bioinsecticides*Effective for all stages of mosquitoes. It has demonstrated entomological and epidemiological efficacy.Insecticide resistance, Low acceptability, and limited sense of security in the community Costly and time-consuming Requires high coverage Poor persistence Regulatory and environmental constraints Needs skilled, experienced staff Constraints for the treatment of cryptic breeding sites
Autodissemination Augmented by Males (ADAM)*High toxicity to immature mosquitoes, low toxicity to adult mosquitoes, a substantial amount of prior research and environmental assessment, and its classification as a low-risk insecticide. Effective control to the small and cryptic containers.Insecticide resistance Degradation of insecticide
PhysicalAedesOils, surfactants, and polystyrene pearlsEffective control of the small containers.Environmentally unfriendly
Ovitraps*Low cost Possible to combine with community participation Sustainable, able to be reused for several seasons.Insecticide resistance Degradation of insecticide Costly and time-consuming Requires high coverage
Acoustical larvicides*Effective control of the small containers. This method can be used as a complement to the chemical or biological larvicides Reduce the use of insecticideCostly and time-consuming Requires high coverage Poor persistence Regulatory and environmental constraints
Aedes, AnophelesMosquito nets, curtains, lidsIndividual-and community-based action Residual activity with long-lasting technology.Insecticide resistance Low protection against UV Degradation of insecticide
CulturalAedes, AnophelesCOMBIThere is evidence that community participation contributes to the reduction of the vector population.The constant change of personnel and lack of political will due to the fact that these programmes are difficult to implement because they take longer to reflect impact compared to a low-cost approach IEC.
Approaches to social participation
Ecosystem approaches to health*

Table 1.

Advantages and disadvantages of vector control strategies.

New strategies.


Advertisement

4. Conclusions

Many mosquito vector control strategies have been developed in recent years, but these strategies must take into account the local context and their application must be guided by integrated vector management.

In vector control strategies, various advances are being developed worldwide in all forms of control, for example, regardless of biological and genetic control the extensive development of the use of other species of fungi, Wolbachia bacteria, the sterile male technique, and the genetic manipulation of insects, which have already been tested in field conditions, may bring interesting results for inclusion in traditional control programmes in the future. A great development is expected in the use of the CRISP technique in gene editing in mosquitoes for later release.

A great development is expected in the use of autodissemination augmented by males, which is a technique that offers many advantages and can be used in combination with traditional control methods.

It is possible that in the future, the use of insecticides will be limited by the development of the above control strategies; however, it is necessary to develop other alternatives that arise from plants where the use of nanotechnology can play an important role.

These advances are essential, but the communities that ultimately benefit from all this development must be taken into account.

The efforts of researchers in the development and evaluation of these and new control methods, the political will of governments, funding from the business sector, and community participation are essential to the success of these strategies.

References

  1. 1. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496(7446):504-507
  2. 2. WHO. Technical Report: Recommendations for Scientific Evidence-Based Yellow Fever Risk Assessment in the Americas. Washington, D.C.: WHO; 2013. p. 49
  3. 3. World Health Organization. World Malaria Report 2021 [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2021. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/350147. [Accessed: 2 January 2022]
  4. 4. WHO. Global vector response 2017-2030 [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241512978
  5. 5. Pan American Health Organization. Handbook for Integrated Vector Management. Washington, DC: Organización Panamericana de la Salud, Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana, Oficina Regional de la Organización Mundial de la Salud; 2012. p. 68
  6. 6. Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Documento operativo de aplicación del manejo integrado de vectores adaptado al contexto de las Américas. Washington, D.C.: OPS; 2019. p. 68
  7. 7. Kraemer MU, Sinka ME, Duda KA, Mylne AQ , Shearer FM, Barker CM, et al. The global distribution of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and ae. Albopictus. eLife. 2015;4:e08347
  8. 8. Araújo AP, Araujo Diniz DF, Helvecio E, de Barros RA, de Oliveira CMF, Ayres CFJ, et al. The susceptibility of Aedes aegypti populations displaying temephos resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis: A basis for management. Parasites & Vectors. 2013;6(1):297
  9. 9. McMeniman CJ, Lane RV, Cass BN, Fong AWC, Sidhu M, Wang YF, et al. Stable introduction of a life-shortening Wolbachia infection into the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Science. 2009;323(5910):141-144
  10. 10. Calvitti M, Marini F, Desiderio A, Puggioli A, Moretti R. Wolbachia density and cytoplasmic incompatibility in Aedes albopictus: Concerns with using artificial Wolbachia infection as a vector suppression tool. Bourtzis K, editor. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0121813
  11. 11. Bonneau M, Landmann F, Labbé P, Justy F, Weill M, Sicard M. The cellular phenotype of cytoplasmic incompatibility in Culex pipiens in the light of cidB diversity. PLoS Pathogens. 2018;14(10):e1007364
  12. 12. PAHO. Evaluation of Innovative Strategies for Aedes aegypti Control: Challenges for their Introduction and Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C: PAHO; 2019
  13. 13. Pietri JE, DeBruhl H, Sullivan W. The rich somatic life of Wolbachia. MicrobiologyOpen. 2016;5(6):923-936
  14. 14. Bourtzis K, Dobson SL, Xi Z, Rasgon JL, Calvitti M, Moreira LA, et al. Harnessing mosquito–Wolbachia symbiosis for vector and disease control. Acta Tropica. 2014;132:S150-S163
  15. 15. Dutra HLC, Rocha MN, Dias FBS, Mansur SB, Caragata EP, Moreira LA. Wolbachia blocks currently circulating Zika virus isolates in Brazilian Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Cell Host & Microbe. 2016;19(6):771-774
  16. 16. Bouyer J, Marois E. Genetic control of vectors. In: Pests and Vector-Borne Diseases in the Livestock Industry. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2018. pp. 435-451
  17. 17. Yen PS, Failloux AB. A review: Wolbachia-based population replacement for mosquito control shares common points with genetically modified control approaches. Pathogens. 2020;9(5):404
  18. 18. World Health Organization, The International Atomic Energy Agency. Guidance Framework for Testing the Sterile Insect Technique as a Vector Control Tool against aedes-Borne Diseases [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. p. 189. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331679. [Accessed: 4 January 2022]
  19. 19. Ross PA, Turelli M, Hoffmann AA. Evolutionary ecology of Wolbachia releases for disease control. Annual Review of Genetics. 2019;53(1):93-116
  20. 20. Najitha Banu A, Balasubramanian C, Moorthi PV. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Bacillus thuringiensis against dengue vector, Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitology Research. 2014;113(1):311-316
  21. 21. Thelma J, Balasubramanian C. Ovicidal, larvicidal and pupicidal efficacy of silver nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus marisflavi against the chosen mosquito species. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260253
  22. 22. Nabar BM, Lokegaonkar S. Larvicidal activity of microbial metabolites extracted from extremophiles against vector mosquitoes. International Journal of Mosquito Research. 2015;2(3):161-163
  23. 23. Janaki T. Larvicidal activity of Streptomyces cacaoi subsp. cacaoi-M20 against Aedes aegypti. International Journal of Botany Studies. 2016;1(2):47-49
  24. 24. Bucker A, Bucker NCF, de Souza AQL, da Gama AM, Rodrigues-Filho E, da Costa FM, et al. Larvicidal effects of endophytic and basidiomycete fungus extracts on Aedes and Anopheles larvae (Diptera, Culicidae). Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical. 2013;46(4):411-419
  25. 25. Rodrigues J, Campos VC, Humber RA, Luz C. Efficacy of Culicinomyces spp. against Aedes aegypti eggs, larvae and adults. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2018;157:104-111
  26. 26. Rueda ME, Tavares I, López CC, García J. Leptolegnia chapmanii como alternativa biológica para el control de Aedes aegypti. Biomédica. 2019;39(4):798-810
  27. 27. Rueda Páramo ME, López Lastra CC, García JJ. Persistence and pathogenicity of a native isolate of Leptolegnia chapmanii against Aedes aegypti larvae in different anthropic environments. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2015;25(2):238-243
  28. 28. Karthi S, Vasantha-Srinivasan P, Ganesan R, Ramasamy V, Senthil-Nathan S, Khater HF, et al. Target activity of Isaria tenuipes (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) fungal strains against dengue vector Aedes aegypti (Linn.) and its non-target activity against aquatic predators. Journal of Fungi. 2020;6(4):196
  29. 29. Reyes-Villanueva F, Garza-Hernandez JA, Garcia-Munguia AM, Tamez-Guerra P, Howard AF, Rodriguez-Perez MA. Dissemination of Metarhizium anisopliae of low and high virulence by mating behavior in Aedes aegypti. Parasites & Vectors. 2011;4(1):171
  30. 30. García-Munguía AM, Garza-Hernández JA, Rebollar-Tellez EA, Rodríguez-Pérez MA, Reyes-Villanueva F. Transmission of Beauveria bassiana from male to female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Parasites & Vectors. 2011;4(1):24
  31. 31. Baverstock J, Roy HE, Pell JK. Entomopathogenic fungi and insect behaviour: From unsuspecting hosts to targeted vectors. BioControl. 2010;55(1):89-102
  32. 32. Salunkhe RB, Patil SV, Patil CD, Salunke BK. Larvicidal potential of silver nanoparticles synthesized using fungus Cochliobolus lunatus against Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and Anopheles stephensi Liston (Diptera; Culicidae). Parasitology Research. 2011;109(3):823-831
  33. 33. Gopinath K, Karthika V, Sundaravadivelan C, Gowri S, Arumugam A. Mycogenesis of cerium oxide nanoparticles using aspergillus Niger culture filtrate and their applications for antibacterial and larvicidal activities. Journal of Nanostructure in Chemistry. 2015;5(3):295-303
  34. 34. Peshiutta ML, Cagnolo SR, Almirón WR. Susceptibilty of larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) (Diptera: Culicidae) to entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabtiditidis bacteriophora (Ponar) (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae). Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina. 2014;73(3-4):99-108
  35. 35. Treviño-Cueto D, Subbotin SA, Sanchez-Peña SR. Larvicidal activity of Entomopathogenic nematodes isolated from Mexico against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Entomological Science. 2021;56(1):12-23
  36. 36. Aiswarya D, Raja Ramalingam K, Chinnaperumal K, Govindasamy B, Paramasivam D, Dhayalan A, et al. Isolation and growth inhibition potential of entomopathogenic nematodes against three public health important mosquito vectors. Experimental Parasitology. 2019;197:76-84
  37. 37. Alphey L, McKemey A, Nimmo D, Neira Oviedo M, Lacroix R, Matzen K, et al. Genetic control of Aedes mosquitoes. Pathogens and Global Health. 2013;107(4):170-179
  38. 38. Facchinelli L, Valerio L, Ramsey JM, Gould F, Walsh RK, Bond G, et al. Field cage studies and progressive evaluation of genetically-engineered mosquitoes. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2013;7(1):e2001
  39. 39. Patterson RS, Weidhaas DE, Ford HR, Lofgren CS. Suppression and elimination of an island population of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus with sterile males. Science. 1970;168(3937):1368-1370
  40. 40. Weidhaas DE, Breeland SG, Lofgren CS, Dame DA, Kaiser R. Release of Chemosterilized males for the control of Anopheles albimanus in El Salvador. IV. Dynamics of the test population. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1974;23:298-308
  41. 41. Vreysen MJB, Saleh KM, Ali MY, Abdulla AM, Zhu ZR, Juma KG, et al. Glossina austeni (Diptera: Glossinidae) eradicated on the island of Unguja, Zanzibar, using the sterile insect technique. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2000;93(1):123-135
  42. 42. Weidhaas DE, Schmidt CH, Seabrook EL. Field studies on the release of sterile males for the control of Anopheles quadrimaculatus. Mosquito News. 1962;22:283-290
  43. 43. Lees RS, Carvalho D, Bouyer J. Potential impact of integrating the sterile insect technique into the fight against disease-transmitting mosquitoes. In: Sterile Insect Technique Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. 2nd ed. IAEA. New York: CRC Press; 2021. pp. 1081-1118
  44. 44. Pagendam DE, Trewin BJ, Snoad N, Ritchie SA, Hoffmann AA, Staunton KM, et al. Modelling the Wolbachia incompatible insect technique: Strategies for effective mosquito population elimination. BMC Biology. 2020;18(1):161
  45. 45. Kittayapong P, Kaeothaisong N, Ninphanomchai S, Limohpasmanee W. Combined sterile insect technique and incompatible insect technique: Sex separation and quality of sterile Aedes aegypti male mosquitoes released in a pilot population suppression trial in Thailand. Parasites & Vectors. 2018;11(S2):657
  46. 46. Zheng X, Zhang D, Li Y, Yang C, Wu Y, Liang X, et al. Incompatible and sterile insect techniques combined eliminate mosquitoes. Nature. 2019;572(7767):56-61
  47. 47. Windbichler N, Papathanos PA, Crisanti A. Targeting the X chromosome during spermatogenesis induces Y chromosome transmission ratio distortion and early dominant embryo lethality in Anopheles gambiae. Stern DL, editor. PLoS Genetics. 2008;4(12):e1000291
  48. 48. Deredec A, Burt A, Godfray HCJ. The population genetics of using homing endonuclease genes in vector and Pest management. Genetics. 2008;179(4):2013-2026
  49. 49. Li M, Yang T, Bui M, Gamez S, Wise T, Kandul NP, et al. Suppressing mosquito populations with precision guided sterile males. Nature Communications. 2021;12(1):5374
  50. 50. Jing Q , Wang M. Dengue epidemiology. Global Health Journal. 2019;3(2):37-45
  51. 51. Pan-American Health Organization. Manual for Indoor Residual Spraying in Urban Areas for Aedes aegypti Control. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization; 2019. p. 60
  52. 52. Santacoloma L, Chaves B, Brochero HL. Estado de la susceptibilidad de poblaciones naturales del vector del dengue a insecticidas en 13 localidades de Colombia. Biomédica. 2012;32:3
  53. 53. Mains JW, Brelsfoard CL, Dobson SL. Male mosquitoes as vehicles for insecticide. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2015;9(1):e0003406
  54. 54. Devine GJ, Perea EZ, Killeen GF, Stancil JD, Clark SJ, Morrison AC. Using adult mosquitoes to transfer insecticides to Aedes aegypti larval habitats. PNAS. 2009;106(28):11530-11534
  55. 55. Hustedt JC, Boyce R, Bradley J, Hii J, Alexander N. Use of pyriproxyfen in control of Aedes mosquitoes: A systematic review. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2020;14(6):e0008205
  56. 56. Abad-Franch F, Zamora-Perea E, Ferraz G, Padilla-Torres SD, Luz SLB. Mosquito-disseminated Pyriproxyfen yields high breeding-site coverage and boosts juvenile mosquito mortality at the Neighborhood scale. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2015;9(4):e0003702
  57. 57. Abad-Franch F, Zamora-Perea E, Luz SLB. Mosquito-disseminated insecticide for citywide vector control and its potential to block arbovirus epidemics: Entomological observations and Modeling results from Amazonian Brazil. PLoS Medicine. 2017;14(1):e1002213
  58. 58. Brelsfoard CL, Mains JW, Mulligan S, Cornel A, Holeman J, Kluh S, et al. Aedes aegypti males as vehicles for insecticide delivery. Insects. 2019;10(8):230
  59. 59. Suman DS, Wang Y, Faraji A, Williams GM, Williges E, Gaugler R. Seasonal field efficacy of pyriproxyfen autodissemination stations against container-inhabiting mosquito Aedes albopictus under different habitat conditions: Field efficacy of pyriproxyfen autodissemination stations against mosquitoes. Pest Management Science. 2018;74(4):885-895
  60. 60. Corbel V, Durot C, Achee NL, Chandre F, Coulibaly MB, David JP, et al. Second WIN international conference on “integrated approaches and innovative tools for combating insecticide resistance in vectors of arboviruses”, October 2018. Singapore: Parasites & Vectors. 2019;12(1):331
  61. 61. Patil CD, Borase HP, Patil SV, Salunkhe RB, Salunke BK. Larvicidal activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized using Pergularia daemia plant latex against Aedes aegypti and Anopheles stephensi and nontarget fish Poecillia reticulata. Parasitology Research. 2012;111(2):555-562
  62. 62. Patil CD, Patil SV, Borase HP, Salunke BK, Salunkhe RB. Larvicidal activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized using Plumeria rubra plant latex against Aedes aegypti and Anopheles stephensi. Parasitology Research. 2012;110(5):1815-1822
  63. 63. Muthukumaran U, Govindarajan M, Rajeswary M, Hoti SL. Synthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles using Gmelina asiatica leaf extract against filariasis, dengue, and malaria vector mosquitoes. Parasitology Research. 2015;114(5):1817-1827
  64. 64. Velayutham K, Ramanibai R. Larvicidal activity of synthesized silver nanoparticles using isoamyl acetate identified in Annona squamosa leaves against Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. The Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology. 2016;74:16-22
  65. 65. Rawani A. Mosquito larvicidal activity of green silver nanoparticle synthesized from extract of bud of Polianthus tuberosa L. International Journal of Nanotechnology and Application. 2017;1:12
  66. 66. Morejón B, Pilaquinga F, Domenech F, Ganchala D, Debut A, Neira M. Larvicidal activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized using extracts of Ambrosia arborescens (Asteraceae) to control Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Nanotechnology. 2018;20:1-8
  67. 67. Pilaquinga F, Morejón B, Ganchala D, Morey J, Piña N, Debut A, et al. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Solanum mammosum L. (Solanaceae) fruit extract and their larvicidal activity against Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae). PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0224109
  68. 68. Amarasinghe LD, Wickramarachchi PASR, Aberathna AAAU, Sithara WS, De Silva CR. Comparative study on larvicidal activity of green synthesized silver nanoparticles and Annona glabra (Annonaceae) aqueous extract to control Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Heliyon. 2020;6(6):e04322
  69. 69. Govindan L, Anbazhagan S, Altemimi AB, Lakshminarayanan K, Kuppan S, Pratap-Singh A, et al. Efficacy of antimicrobial and Larvicidal activities of green synthesized silver nanoparticles using leaf extract of Plumbago auriculata lam. Plants. 2020;9(11):1577
  70. 70. Ishwarya R, Saravanan K, Selvaraj D, Govindarajan M, Alharbi NS, Kadaikunnan S, et al. Antibacterial greener silver nanoparticles synthesized using Marsilea quadrifolia extract and their eco-friendly evaluation against Zika virus vector, Aedes aegypti. Green Processing and Synthesis. 2021;10(1):742-755
  71. 71. Feng X, Ma H, Huang S, Pan W, Zhang X, Tian F, et al. Aqueous−organic phase-transfer of highly stable gold, silver, and platinum nanoparticles and new route for fabrication of gold Nanofilms at the oil/water Interface and on solid supports. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B. 2006;110(25):12311-12317
  72. 72. Lee SJ, Kim JH, Lee SC. Effects of oil-film layer and surfactant on the siphonal respiration and survivorship in the fourth instar larvae of Aedes togoi mosquito in laboratory conditions. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):5694
  73. 73. Lima EP, Goulart MOF, Rolim Neto ML. Meta-analysis of studies on chemical, physical and biological agents in the control of Aedes aegypti. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):858
  74. 74. Sharp TM, Lorenzi O, Torres-Velásquez B, Acevedo V, Pérez-Padilla J, Rivera A, et al. Autocidal gravid ovitraps protect humans from chikungunya virus infection by reducing Aedes aegypti mosquito populations. Pimenta P, editor. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2019;13(7):e0007538
  75. 75. Sissoko F, Junnila A, Traore MM, Traore SF, Doumbia S, Dembele SM, et al. Frequent sugar feeding behavior by Aedes aegypti in Bamako, Mali makes them ideal candidates for control with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB). Lanz-Mendoza H, editor. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0214170
  76. 76. Britch SC, Nyberg H, Aldridge RL, Swan T, Linthicum KJ. Acoustic control of mosquito larvae In artificial drinking water containers. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2016;32(4):341-344
  77. 77. Kalimuthu K, Tseng LC, Murugan K, Panneerselvam C, Aziz AT, Benelli G, et al. Ultrasonic technology applied against mosquito larvae. Applied Sciences. 2020;10(10):3546
  78. 78. Fredregill CL, Motl GC, Dennett JA Jr, Bueno R, Debboun M. Efficacy of two larvasonictm units against Culex larvae and effects on common aquatic nontarget organisms in Harris County, Texas. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2015;31(4):5
  79. 79. Tawatsin A, Thavara U, Siriyasatien P, Permpoonburana S. Development of a novel ultrasonic sound-generated device: The physical tool for controlling immature stages of mosquitoes transmitting dengue haemorrhagic fever (Aedes aegypti) and Filariasis (Culex quinquefasciatus). Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research. 2019;19(3):14308-14314
  80. 80. Parks W, Lloyd L. Planning Social Mobilization and Communication for Dengue Fever Prevention and Control: A Step-by-Step Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004
  81. 81. OPS/OMS. Sistematización de lecciones aprendidas en proyectos COMBI en dengue en la Región de las Américas. Costa Rica: Organización Panamericana de Salud; 2011
  82. 82. Asian Development Bank, World Health Organization. Managing regional public goods for health: Community-based dengue vector control. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank; 2013
  83. 83. Rodriguez Reyes AJ, Roncancio Melgarejo CP, Misnaza Castrillón SP. Estrategias de comunicación para impactar conductas (COMBI) en enfermedades vectoriales en América Latina. Revista Médica de Risaralda. 2020;26(1):78-91
  84. 84. Kay B, Nam VS. New strategy against Aedes aegypti in Vietnam. Public Health. 2005;365:5
  85. 85. Kittayapong P, Bhumiratana A, Yoksan S, Chansang U, Chansang C. Suppression of dengue transmission by application of integrated vector control strategies at Sero-positive GIS-based foci. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2008;78(1):70-76
  86. 86. Toledo Romani ME, Vanlerberghe V, Perez D, Lefevre P, Ceballos E, Bandera D, et al. Achieving sustainability of community-based dengue control in Santiago de Cuba. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;64(4):976-988
  87. 87. Cáceres-Manrique FDM, Vesga-Gómez C, Angulo-Silva ML. Empoderamiento para la prevención y control del Dengue. Revista de Salud Pública. 2010;12(5):798-806
  88. 88. Pérez D, Robert E, Pérez EJ, Vanlerberghe V, Lefèvre P, Ridde V. A realist synthesis of community-based interventions in vector-borne diseases. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2021;104(4):1202-1210
  89. 89. Andersson N, Nava-Aguilera E, Arosteguí J, Morales-Perez A, Suazo-Laguna H, Legorreta-Soberanis J, et al. Evidence based community mobilization for dengue prevention in Nicaragua and Mexico (Camino Verde, the green way): Cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3267
  90. 90. Andersson N, Arostegui J, Nava-Aguilera E, Harris E, Ledogar RJ. Camino Verde (the green way): Evidence-based community mobilisation for dengue control in Nicaragua and Mexico: Feasibility study and study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(S1):407
  91. 91. Arosteguí J, Ledogar RJ, Coloma J, Hernández-Alvarez C, Suazo-Laguna H, Cárcamo A, et al. The Camino Verde intervention in Nicaragua, 2004-2012. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(Suppl. 1):406
  92. 92. Ledogar RJ, Hernández-Alvarez C, Morrison AC, Arosteguí J, Morales-Perez A, Nava-Aguilera E, et al. When communities are really in control: Ethical issues surrounding community mobilisation for dengue prevention in Mexico and Nicaragua. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(Suppl. 1):410
  93. 93. Morales-Perez A, Nava-Aguilera E, Legorreta-Soberanis J, Paredes-Solís S, Balanzar-Martínez A, Serrano-de los Santos FR, et al. Which green way: Description of the intervention for mobilising against Aedes aegypti under difficult security conditions in southern Mexico. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(S1):398
  94. 94. Toledo ME, Vanlerberghe V, Baly A, Ceballos E, Valdes L, Searret M, et al. Towards active community participation in dengue vector control: Results from action research in Santiago de Cuba. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;101(1):56-63
  95. 95. Baly A, Sanchez I, Ceballos E, Carvajal M, Maso R, La Rosa M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a community-based approach intertwined with a vertical Aedes control program. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2009;81(1):88-93
  96. 96. Sanchez L, Perez D, Perez T, Sosa T, Cruz G, Kouri G, et al. Intersectoral coordination in Aedes aegypti control. A pilot project in Havana City, Cuba. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2005;10(1):82-91
  97. 97. Sánchez L, Pérez D, Cruz G, Silva LC, Boelaert M, Van der Stuyft P. Participación comunitaria en el control de Aedes aegypti: opiniones de la población en un municipio de La Habana. Cuba: Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública; 2004;15(1)
  98. 98. Pérez D, Lefèvre P, Sánchez L, Sánchez LM, Boelaert M, Kourí G, et al. Community participation in Aedes aegypti control: A sociological perspective on five years of research in the health area ‘“26 de Julio”’, Havana, Cuba. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2007;12(5):664-672
  99. 99. Pengvanich V. Family leader empowerment program using participatory learning process for dengue vector control. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 2011;94(2):7
  100. 100. Sommerfeld J, Kroeger A. Eco-bio-social research on dengue in Asia: A multicountry study on ecosystem and community-based approaches for the control of dengue vectors in urban and peri-urban Asia. Pathogens and Global Health. 2012;106(8):428-435
  101. 101. Quintero J, Brochero H, Manrique-Saide P, Barrera-Pérez M, Basso C, Romero S, et al. Ecological, biological and social dimensions of dengue vector breeding in five urban settings of Latin America: A multi-country study. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2014;14(1):38
  102. 102. Tana S, Abeyewickreme W, Arunachalam N, Espino F, Kittayapong P, Wai KT, et al. Eco-bio-social research on dengue in Asia: General principles and a case study from Indonesia. In: Charron DF, editor. Ecohealth Research in Practice. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2012. pp. 173-184
  103. 103. Quintero J, García-Betancourt T, Caprara A, Basso C, Garcia da Rosa E, Manrique-Saide P, et al. Taking innovative vector control interventions in urban Latin America to scale: Lessons learnt from multi-country implementation research. Pathogens and Global Health. 2017;111(6):306-316
  104. 104. Wilcox BA, Colwell RR. Emerging and Reemerging infectious diseases: Biocomplexity as an interdisciplinary paradigm. EcoHealth. 2005;2(4):244
  105. 105. Meadows DH, Wright D. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. London [u.a.]: Earthscan; 2009. p. 218
  106. 106. Stewart-Ibarra AM. A Socio-Ecological Analysis of Vulnerability to Dengue Fever in Southern Coastal Ecuador. Syracuse, New York, NY: State University of New York; 2012
  107. 107. Stewart-Ibarra AM, Muñoz ÁG, Ryan SJ, Ayala EB, Borbor-Cordova MJ, Finkelstein JL, et al. Spatiotemporal clustering, climate periodicity, and social-ecological risk factors for dengue during an outbreak in Machala, Ecuador, in 2010. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2014;14(1):610
  108. 108. Stewart Ibarra AM, Luzadis VA, Borbor Cordova MJ, Silva M, Ordoñez T, Beltrán Ayala E, et al. A social-ecological analysis of community perceptions of dengue fever and Aedes aegypti in Machala, Ecuador. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1135
  109. 109. Stewart-Ibarra AM, Lowe R. Climate and non-climate drivers of dengue epidemics in southern coastal Ecuador. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2013;88(5):971-981
  110. 110. King B. Political ecologies of health. Progress in Human Geography. 2010;34(1):38-55
  111. 111. Harris ML, Carter ED. Muddying the waters: A political ecology of mosquito-borne disease in coastal Ecuador. Health & Place. 2019;57:330-338
  112. 112. Bayona-Valderrama A, Acevedo-Guerrero T, Artur C. Cities with mosquitoes: A political ecology of Aedes Aegypti’s habitats. Water Alternatives. 2021;14(1):19
  113. 113. Gómez Romero SE, Hernández Rodríguez CZ, Corrales Ramírez LC. Bacillus sphaericus: biocontrolador de vectores que producen malaria, fiebre amarilla y dengue. Nova. 2009;7(12):161
  114. 114. Ge Y, Hu X, Zheng D, Wu Y, Yuan Z. Allelic diversity and population structure of Bacillus sphaericus as revealed by multilocus sequence typing. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2011;77(15):5553-5556
  115. 115. Dambach P, Louis VR, Kaiser A, Ouedraogo S, Sié A, Sauerborn R, et al. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis against malaria mosquitoes in northwestern Burkina Faso. Parasites & Vectors. 2014;7(1):371
  116. 116. Gowelo S, Chirombo J, Spitzen J, Koenraadt CJM, Mzilahowa T, van den Berg H, et al. Effects of larval exposure to sublethal doses of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on body size, oviposition and survival of adult Anopheles coluzzii mosquitoes. Parasites & Vectors. 2020;13(1):259
  117. 117. Derua YA, Kweka EJ, Kisinza WN, Githeko AK, Mosha FW. Bacterial larvicides used for malaria vector control in sub-Saharan Africa: Review of their effectiveness and operational feasibility. Parasites & Vectors. 2019;12(1):426
  118. 118. Hughes GL, Koga R, Xue P, Fukatsu T, Rasgon JL. Wolbachia infections are virulent and inhibit the human malaria parasite plasmodium falciparum in Anopheles Gambiae. PLoS Pathogens. 2011;7(5):e1002043
  119. 119. Hughes GL, Dodson BL, Johnson RM, Murdock CC, Tsujimoto H, Suzuki Y, et al. Native microbiome impedes vertical transmission of Wolbachia in Anopheles mosquitoes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(34):12498-12503
  120. 120. Baldini F, Segata N, Pompon J, Marcenac P, Robert Shaw W, Dabiré RK, et al. Evidence of natural Wolbachia infections in field populations of Anopheles gambiae. Nature Communications. 2014;5(1):3985
  121. 121. Bian G, Joshi D, Dong Y, Lu P, Zhou G, Pan X, et al. Wolbachia invades Anopheles stephensi populations and induces refractoriness to plasmodium infection. Science. 2013;340(6133):748-751
  122. 122. Walker T, Quek S, Jeffries CL, Bandibabone J, Dhokiya V, Bamou R, et al. Stable high-density and maternally inherited Wolbachia infections in Anopheles moucheti and Anopheles demeilloni mosquitoes. Current Biology. 2021;31(11):2310-2320.e5
  123. 123. Walker T, Quek S, Jeffries CL, Bandibabone J, Dhokiya V, Bamou R, et al. Genomic and microscopic evidence of stable high density and maternally inherited Wolbachia infections in Anopheles mosquitoes. bioRxiv preprint; 2020. p. 1-43. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.29.357400 [cited 10 April 2022]
  124. 124. Wong ML, Liew JWK, Wong WK, Pramasivan S, Mohamed Hassan N, Wan Sulaiman WY, et al. Natural Wolbachia infection in field-collected Anopheles and other mosquito species from Malaysia. Parasites & Vectors. 2020;13(1):414
  125. 125. Knols BG, Bukhari T, Farenhorst M. Entomopathogenic fungi as the next-generation control agents against malaria mosquitoes. Future Microbiology. 2010;5(3):339-341
  126. 126. Jin L, Niu G, Guan L, Ramelow J, Zhan Z, Zhou X, et al. Discovery of mosquitocides from fungal extracts through a high-throughput cytotoxicity-screening approach. Parasites & Vectors. 2021;14(1):595
  127. 127. Ghosh SK, Podder D, Mukherjee A. An insight of anopheline larvicidal mechanism of Trichoderma asperellum (TaspSKGN2). Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):16029
  128. 128. Podder D, Ghosh SK. A new application of Trichoderma asperellum as an anopheline larvicide for eco friendly management in medical science. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):1108
  129. 129. WHO. Data Sheet on the Biological Control Agent. Romanomermis culicivorax (Ross and Smith 1976). Geneva: WHO; 1980. p. 21
  130. 130. Santamarina Mijares A, Bellin AC. Producción masiva de Romanomermis iyengari (Nematoda: Mermithidae) y su aplicación en criaderos de anofelinos en Boa Vista (Roraima). Brasil: Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública; 2000;7(3):151-161
  131. 131. Pérez-Pacheco R, Rodríguez-Hernández C, Lara-Reyna J, Montes-Belmont R, Ruiz-Vega J. Control of the mosquito Anopheles pseudopunctipennis (Diptera: Culicidae) with Romanomermis iyengari (Nematoda: Mermithidae) in Oaxaca. Mexico: Biological Control. 2005;32(1):137-142
  132. 132. Rivera Mendoza P, Blanco J, Solis Quant S, Eliseo Astin G, García Avila I, García García I, et al. Romanomermis culicivorax (Nematoda: Mermithidae): una alternativa para el control de vectores de malaria en Nicaragua. Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical. 2014;66(1):101-111
  133. 133. Abagli AZ, Alavo TBC, Perez-Pacheco R, Platzer EG. Efficacy of the mermithid nematode, Romanomermis iyengari, for the biocontrol of Anopheles gambiae, the major malaria vector in sub-Saharan Africa. Parasites & Vectors. 2019;12(1):253
  134. 134. Alavo TB, Abagli AZ, Pérez R, Platzer EG. Large-scale production of the malaria vector biocontrol agent Romanomermis iyengari (Nematoda: Mermithidae) in Benin. West Africa: Malaria World Journal. 2015;6:1-5
  135. 135. Braks M, van Lenteren JC, Takken W. Human Skin Emanations in the Host-Seeking Behaviour of the Malaria Mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Netherlands and Tanzania: Laboratory of Entomology of the Wageningen University and the Ifakara Health Research and Development Center; 1999. p. 112
  136. 136. Owino EA. Sampling of an Gambiae s.s mosquitoes using limburger cheese, heat and moisture as baits in a homemade trap. BMC Research Notes. 2011;4(1):284
  137. 137. Mozūraitis R, Hajkazemian M, Zawada JW, Szymczak J, Pålsson K, Sekar V, et al. Male swarming aggregation pheromones increase female attraction and mating success among multiple African malaria vector mosquito species. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2020;4(10):1395-1401
  138. 138. Oliva CF, Vreysen MJB, Dupé S, Lees RS, Gilles JRL, Gouagna LC, et al. Current status and future challenges for controlling malaria with the sterile insect technique: Technical and social perspectives. Acta Tropica. 2014;132:S130-S139
  139. 139. Mashatola T, Ndo C, Koekemoer LL, Dandalo LC, Wood OR, Malakoane L, et al. A review on the progress of sex-separation techniques for sterile insect technique applications against Anopheles arabiensis. Parasites & Vectors. 2018;11(S2):646
  140. 140. Ndo C, Poumachu Y, Metitsi D, Awono-Ambene HP, Tchuinkam T, Gilles JLR, et al. Isolation and characterization of a temperature-sensitive lethal strain of Anopheles arabiensis for SIT-based application. Parasites & Vectors. 2018;11(S2):659
  141. 141. Kaiser ML, Wood OR, Damiens D, Brooke BD, Koekemoer LL, Munhenga G. Estimates of the population size and dispersal range of Anopheles arabiensis in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implications for a planned pilot programme to release sterile male mosquitoes. Parasites & Vectors. 2021;14(1):205
  142. 142. Benelli G, Beier JC. Current vector control challenges in the fight against malaria. Acta Tropica. 2017;174:91-96
  143. 143. Wooding M, Naudé Y, Rohwer E, Bouwer M. Controlling mosquitoes with semiochemicals: A review. Parasites & Vectors. 2020;13(1):80
  144. 144. Zoh MG, Bonneville JM, Tutagata J, Laporte F, Fodjo BK, Mouhamadou CS, et al. Experimental evolution supports the potential of neonicotinoid-pyrethroid combination for managing insecticide resistance in malaria vectors. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):19501
  145. 145. Lwetoijera D, Harris C, Kiware S, Dongus S, Devine GJ, McCall PJ, et al. Effective autodissemination of pyriproxyfen to breeding sites by the exophilic malaria vector Anopheles arabiensis in semi-field settings in Tanzania. Malaria Journal. 2014;13(1):161
  146. 146. Kiware SS, Corliss G, Merrill S, Lwetoijera DW, Devine G, Majambere S, et al. Predicting scenarios for successful autodissemination of Pyriproxyfen by malaria vectors from their resting sites to aquatic habitats; description and simulation analysis of a field-Parameterizable model. Vontas J, editor. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131835
  147. 147. Elmosaad YM, Elhadi M, Khan A, Malik EM, Mahmud I. Communication for behavioural impact in enhancing utilization of insecticide-treated bed nets among mothers of under-five children in rural North Sudan: An experimental study. Malaria Journal. 2016;15(1):509
  148. 148. Barry N, Toé P, Pare Toe L, Lezaun J, Drabo M, Dabiré RK, et al. Motivations and expectations driving community participation in entomological research projects: Target malaria as a case study in Bana, Western Burkina Faso. Malaria Journal. 2020;19(1):199
  149. 149. McCann RS, van den Berg H, Diggle PJ, van Vugt M, Terlouw DJ, Phiri KS, et al. Assessment of the effect of larval source management and house improvement on malaria transmission when added to standard malaria control strategies in southern Malawi: Study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(1):639
  150. 150. Ng’ang’a PN, Aduogo P, Mutero CM. Strengthening community and stakeholder participation in the implementation of integrated vector management for malaria control in western Kenya: A case study. Malaria Journal. 2021;20(1):155
  151. 151. SantoDomingo AF, Castro-Díaz L, González-Uribe C. Ecosystem research experience with two indigenous communities of Colombia: The Ecohealth calendar as a participatory and innovative methodological tool. EcoHealth. 2016;13(4):687-697

Written By

Wilber Gómez-Vargas and Giovani Esteban Zapata-Úsuga

Submitted: 30 January 2022 Reviewed: 22 April 2022 Published: 28 May 2022

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 7 Different Strategies for Mosquito Control: Challen...

By Taruna Kaura, Neha Sylvia Walter, Upninder Kaur an...

504 downloads

Chapter 8 The Potential for Wolbachia-Based Mosquito Biocont...

By Femi Ayoade and Tosin S. Ogunbiyi

210 downloads

Chapter 9 Community Engagement and Social Assessment for Wol...

By Josué Villegas-Chim, Abdiel Martin-Park, Henry Pue...

183 downloads