<i>Zea mays</i> pollen for the optimization of colony rearing of <i>Anopheles arabiensis</i> Patton (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes under laboratory conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & objectives: Supplements that make food source attractive are crucial as they enhance consumption and optimize on nutrient acquisition from the said foodstuff. In this study we evaluate phagostimulatory effect of Zea mays pollen when given alone or together with larval diets to Anopheles arabiensis Patton ( Diptera: Culicidae)mosquitoes under laboratory conditions. Methods: Crushed silver cyprinid fish, Rastrineobola argentea and Tetramin ® baby fish food were given together with or without Zea mays pollen or doxycycline to An. arabiensis mosquito larvae and their effect as diet sources compared. The effects were determined against larval development time and fecundity, size and longevity of emerged adult female mosquitoes. Results: Larvae provided with maize pollen alone emerged to adults that lived for 10 days compared to 12 days for Tetramin ® baby fish food and 13 day for crushed silver cyprinid fish. The differences in longevity however did not differ significantly (p < 0.05). Maize pollen in combination with either crushed silver cyprinid fish or TetraMin ® baby fish food resulted in rapid pupation. Adults emerging from maize pollen treatments though smaller in size (2.8 mm) compared to those given crushed silver cyprinid fish (3.2 mm) or Tetramin ® baby fish food (3.4 mm) lived for 10 days. Maize pollen significantly influenced time to pupation (p < 0.01), mosquito size (p < 0.001) but not adult longevity (p < 0.098). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that maize pollen enhances consumption of larval diets resulting in larger long lived female mosquitoes. Maize pollen is therefore a phagostimulant and should be harvested and incorporated in the rearing of quality mosquitoes for experimental use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".