Evaluating the impact of Aedes japonicus invasion on the mosquito community in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region (Ontario, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aedes japonicus was first documented in Ontario, Canada, in 2001. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of Ae. japonicus establishment on the abundance of other mosquitoes in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) region of Ontario. METHODS: Adult mosquito data from the Ontario West Nile virus surveillance program were used. Descriptive analyses, linear trends and distribution maps of average trap count per month for six mosquito species of interest were produced. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were constructed to 1) test whether the invasion of Ae. japonicus affected the abundance of other mosquitoes by comparing the time period before Ae. japonicus was identified in an area (pre-detection), to after it was first identified (detection), and subsequently (establishment), and 2) identify the variables that explain the abundance of the various mosquito species. RESULTS: The monthly seasonal average (May-October) of Ae. japonicus per trap night increased from 2002 to 2016, peaking in September, when the average of most other mosquitoes decrease. There were increased numbers of Ae. triseriatus/hendersoni (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.40, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.02-1.94) and decreased numbers of Coquillettidia perturbans (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26-0.73) in the detection period, compared to the pre-detection period. Additionally, there was a decrease in Cx. pipiens/restuans (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76-0.99) and Cq. perturbans (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.49-0.94) in the establishment period, compared to the pre-detection period. None of the most parsimonious explanatory models included the period of the establishment of Ae. japonicus. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the introduction of Ae. japonicus significantly reduced populations of Ae. triseriatus/hendersoni, Cx. pipiens/restuans or An. punctipennis in the GGH. While further research is needed to understand the impact of the Ae. japonicus invasion on other mosquito species, our work indicates that, on a regional scale, little impact has been noted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".