Effects of Elevated Temperatures on the Growth and Development of Adult <i>Anopheles gambiae (s.l.)</i> (Diptera: Culicidae) Mosquitoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher temperatures expected in a future warmer climate could adversely affect the growth and development of mosquitoes. This study investigated the effects of elevated temperatures on longevity, gonotrophic cycle length, biting rate, fecundity, and body size of Anopheles gambiae (s.l.) (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes. Anopheles gambiae (s.l.) eggs obtained from laboratory established colonies were reared under eight temperature regimes (25, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, and 40°C), and 80 ± 10% RH. All adults were allowed to feed on a 10% sugar solution soaked in cotton wool; however, some mosquitoes were provided blood meal using guinea pig. Longevity was estimated for both blood-fed and non-blood-fed mosquitoes and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. One-way ANOVA was used to test the effect of temperature on gonotrophic cycle length, biting rate, and fecundity. Adult measurement data were log-transformed and analyzed using ordinary least square regression with robust standard errors. Increasing temperature significantly decreased the longevity of both blood-fed (Log-rank test; X2(4) = 904.15, P < 0.001) and non-blood-fed (Log-rank test; X2(4) = 1163.60, P < 0.001) mosquitoes. In addition, the fecundity of mosquitoes decreased significantly (ANOVA; F(2,57) = 3.46, P = 0.038) with an increase in temperature. Body size (β = 0.14, 95% CI, 0.16, 0.12, P < 0.001) and proboscis length (β = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.17, 0.09, P < 0.001) significantly decreased with increasing temperature from 25 to 34°C. Increased temperatures expected in a future warmer climate could cause some unexpected effects on mosquitoes by directly influencing population dynamics and malaria transmission.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".